PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: Radiant Memphis on October 10, 2006, 05:53:02 am
-
Funnyest thing I've saw on the web in a long time.
http://www.venganza.org/
-
Who comes up with this bull? ;D
-
Found that a few months ago. It's hilarious how those religous dudes go CRAZY (read the hate mail section of the site)
"Yeah, everyone keep mocking. Enjoy yourself while you can. Laugh with your father Satan. You poor, poor people; you have no idea."
Man, that just gets me. How blinded are these idiots :P
-
Its humerous but technically incorrect. They call for an alternate theory of intelligent design based on the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" (Sp?), but the original Intelligent design theory pushed by religious types doesnt define the nature of the intelligence, and so already includes the possibility of a 'Flying Spaghetti Monster', if thats what you truely believe god is. The form of god in intelligent design isnt important, it his/her/its impact. So effectively, what they are asking is already covered. Anyone who thinks the site is cutting edge, intelligent satire is in my opinion just as gulliable as the foolish relgious conservatives.
Found that a few months ago. It's hilarious how those religous dudes go CRAZY (read the hate mail section of the site)
Just like religious types get crazy hate mail from scientists who dont like their 'theories'.
-
my physics teacher showed the class this last year or something :p
anyone else here posting off of cardiff uni's network, or is it just that i post so damn fast?
-
Its humerous but technically incorrect. They call for an alternate theory of intelligent design based on the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" (Sp?), but the original Intelligent design theory pushed by religious types doesnt define the nature of the intelligence, and so already includes the possibility of a 'Flying Spaghetti Monster', if thats what you truely believe god is. The form of god in intelligent design isnt important, it his/her/its impact. So effectively, what they are asking is already covered. Anyone who thinks the site is cutting edge, intelligent satire is in my opinion just as gulliable as the foolish relgious conservatives.
Found that a few months ago. It's hilarious how those religous dudes go CRAZY (read the hate mail section of the site)
Just like religious types get crazy hate mail from scientists who dont like their 'theories'.
Intelligent Design is just Creationism after they realized they couldn't get away with saying "God did it!" to all questions about the natural world. Instead of saying "God did it!", they're saying "Something did it!", but their claims are equally baseless. They misuse information theory like whoa, they piss on evolution but they always lie about what evolutionary theory actually says, and they outright ignore the massive amount of knowledge that biologists have accumulated. Even more fundamentally, they ignore the question of "If we had to have been created, then who created our creators? More creators? So who created them?". That part alone shows that those who subscribe to "ID" theory are very silly people indeed.
-
Intelligent Design is just Creationism after they realized they couldn't get away with saying "God did it!" to all questions about the natural world. Instead of saying "God did it!", they're saying "Something did it!", but their claims are equally baseless.
Read my post. Thats not what I was arguing about. I was saying that this particular of satire against intelligent design is flawed, not that intelligent design is correct. My point is if people on the 'scientific' side of the debate make incorrect statements and dont follow science, what mandate do they have to criticise others of doing it?
To correct your facts, creationism is NOT intelligent design. Creationism deals with an explanation for the entire visible universe, and states that the universe was created essentially as it is now some thousands of years ago. Intelligent design is a theory that only deals with evolution and the origin of life on earth (It does NOT deal with how the universe is created) and does NOT assume that the earth and universe was created by a 'god' like figure. In fact Intelligent design demands that the universe is millions of years old, which is contrary to fundamentalist church teachings. It recognises the processes of evolution but says they have been helped at certain points by intelligent input from another place, one of which could be god. Of course, scientists point to this as misleading because for people who dont understand the subtle differences, they could be lead to believe that because intelligent design is not impossible, that therefore god created everything etc. But, judging from your misguided post, there are people on both sides of the arguement who dont understand the finer points.
They misuse information theory like whoa, they piss on evolution but they always lie about what evolutionary theory actually says, and they outright ignore the massive amount of knowledge that biologists have accumulated.
Yeah, can you give some references to back up your claims here? Since I'm assuming you're not a biologist, or an expert on the subject (since you dont know the difference between creationism and intelligent design) you must have either gotten this from someone else, or more likely, just made assumptions based on your prejudices. I could say the same about you- You piss on Intelligent design, you always lie about what intelligent design actually says, and you outright ignore the logical arguements and evidence for it. You're not really setting a good example of scientific process yourself here.
Even more fundamentally, they ignore the question of "If we had to have been created, then who created our creators? More creators? So who created them?". That part alone shows that those who subscribe to "ID" theory are very silly people indeed.
Now you're confusing philosophical questions with scientific theory. Intelligent design does not deal with that, and nor should it, because it is confined to the evolution of the species. Creationism deals with that question, and yet you slander it because it does. It would be unscientific to include such philosophical questions in a theory, so you're saying "Damned if you do, damned if you dont". Make up your mind: Do you want a Scientific approach that includes the possibility of god in evolution, or do you want a belief system dealing with the origins of the universe?
Moreover, your logic is deeply flawed: Thats like saying, "Here is a table. This table must have come about naturally- If humans created it, who created humans? And who created the people who created humans? Therefore those who believe this table was created by intelligent people are very silly people indeed". Who created those who created the table is irrelivant, and doesnt impact on the fact that someone sat down and made the table. To bring in a philosophical arguement like that into a discussion leads the discussion out of the realms of science and into pseudo-science and personal beliefs.
Its my view that people on both sides of this arguement in general are willing to lie and manipulate facts to suit their agenda. I think intelligent design is logically sound and possible, but scientists (somewhat rightly so) dont want to conceed that, as religious types could then bend it to their own purposes. So both sides are going to bring their own objectives into the arguement, and try and muddy the waters at some stage. If you are really interested in forming your own opinion, and not being told by someone else what to think, go to university and study Molecular Biology & Genetics and make up your own mind. It worked for me.
-
Intelligent Design is thinly disguised Creationism though. ID subscribers are modernized Creationists. Like those who take the Bible literally, ID subscribers have adopted a scientific mindset. They try to use scientific facts and theories to justify their position, but their position is very out of touch with science.
They make the claim that the human genome (and therefore the human body as a whole) has evidence of intelligent design. That's very much untrue. The human genome is filled with junk. Not only do we have major problems like getting old and dieing, like flawed vision and digestion and everything else, but our genome is filled with useless junk. We have large chunks of genes that simply don't do anything. Ribosomes simply skip them when constructing proteins.
ID subscribers also make the claim that the human genome is so complex that there's no possible way that it arose from pure chance. They are in part correct, but still wrong. Our genome evolved from one that was simpler, and that one evolved from one that was simpler, all the way back to blue-green algea and before. The only real mystery is the issue of primordial RNA, but that's a much smaller hole than what ID subscribers and other creationists would have us believe.
-
Intelligent Design is thinly disguised Creationism though. ID subscribers are modernized Creationists. Like those who take the Bible literally, ID subscribers have adopted a scientific mindset. They try to use scientific facts and theories to justify their position, but their position is very out of touch with science.
You're contradiciting yourself here. How have those who take the bible literally 'adopted a scientific mindset'? Taking the bible literally is not a scientific mindset. I outlined above why Intelligent Design is not designed creationism. Creationism is a world view. Intelligent design only deals with evolution. Intelligent design cannot replace Creationism because it does not deal with the same questions that Creationism deals with. Their position is out of touch with what modern science believes. Just like Galileo was out of touch with what the majority of the world believed. Out of touch with everyone else does not mean wrong, unless you only want to blindy follow other people.
They make the claim that the human genome (and therefore the human body as a whole) has evidence of intelligent design. That's very much untrue. The human genome is filled with junk. Not only do we have major problems like getting old and dieing, like flawed vision and digestion and everything else, but our genome is filled with useless junk. We have large chunks of genes that simply don't do anything. Ribosomes simply skip them when constructing proteins.
Filled with junk? Or we just haven't dicovered what it does yet?? Our knowledge of the workings of the Human Body is extremely far removed from complete at this stage. Not to mention intelligent design might actually want us to get old, and die, and have flawed vision, etc. Certaintly if you were to take 'God' as the intelligent source, then he would not want us to live forever and be perfect all our lives. If you take some other Intelligent source as having created us then they too could have reasons for making flaws in us. Perhaps their intelligence is not perfect, after all. Human designed objects like cars, tables, computers- these all have flaws in them- but they were still all intelligently designed.
ID subscribers also make the claim that the human genome is so complex that there's no possible way that it arose from pure chance. They are in part correct, but still wrong. Our genome evolved from one that was simpler, and that one evolved from one that was simpler, all the way back to blue-green algea and before. The only real mystery is the issue of primordial RNA, but that's a much smaller hole than what ID subscribers and other creationists would have us believe.
Valid points, but you're not in a position to make quantitive statements about biological chances. The question is not "Is it possible to evolve from a simpler organism", but "How probable is it we evolved from a simpler organism". Thats an extremely complex issue. ID concepts such as Irreducible complexity and specified complexity deal with this.
In conclusion, I'm all for scientifically desconstructing ID and making valid criticisms, but when people say people who believe ID are "very silly people indeed", are "blinded idiots" and "lying about evolution", then its just getting off the topic onto irrelivant mud-slinging. And that is a trademark of a side in an arguement who have little real facts to back up their claims. Accusing someone of lying, not knowing their facts and being foolish in an arguement, while doing that yourself, is no way to run a discussion, no matter how scientifically correct you believe yourself to be.
-
Hey guys, I know this started out as a joke, but these last posts are bordering on crossing the line... A reminder:
Note: Posts of a Political, Religious, or Sexual Nature
Such posts are considered trolling, as they incite personal attacks and flaming, and the latter may be inappropriate for all ages. Do not make them. There are many places on the Internet that welcome such discussions; the PlaneShift forums are not one of those places.
-
You're contradiciting yourself here. How have those who take the bible literally 'adopted a scientific mindset'?
Christian fundamentalism was different before the Scientific Revolution. Now, Christian fundamentalists take a very literal reading of the Bible because they feel a necessity to look at the world in terms of objective truths. That is to say - they have adopted a scientific mindset that demands for absolute truth instead of moral ambiguity. They have a need for theory and evidence. It's just that their source of evidence is the Bible instead of the natural world.
Taking the bible literally is not a scientific mindset. I outlined above why Intelligent Design is not designed creationism. Creationism is a world view. Intelligent design only deals with evolution. Intelligent design cannot replace Creationism because it does not deal with the same questions that Creationism deals with. Their position is out of touch with what modern science believes. Just like Galileo was out of touch with what the majority of the world believed. Out of touch with everyone else does not mean wrong, unless you only want to blindy follow other people.
They claim that their ideas are based in modern science, but that they have come to different conclusions than the experts. However, their ideas are not based in modern science.
Filled with junk? Or we just haven't dicovered what it does yet?
It's junk. A lot of it is probably left over from viruses, while a lot of it simply does nothing but take up space. Ribosomes do not use the information stored in those sectors. And if defects are meant to be intentional, does that mean that we're meant to have poor eyesight, vulnerable immune systems, a whole host of genetic diseases, and so on and so on?
Valid points, but you're not in a position to make quantitive statements about biological chances. The question is not "Is it possible to evolve from a simpler organism", but "How probable is it we evolved from a simpler organism". Thats an extremely complex issue. ID concepts such as Irreducible complexity and specified complexity deal with this.
They deal with it poorly.
In conclusion, I'm all for scientifically desconstructing ID and making valid criticisms, but when people say people who believe ID are "very silly people indeed", are "blinded idiots" and "lying about evolution", then its just getting off the topic onto irrelivant mud-slinging. And that is a trademark of a side in an arguement who have little real facts to back up their claims. Accusing someone of lying, not knowing their facts and being foolish in an arguement, while doing that yourself, is no way to run a discussion, no matter how scientifically correct you believe yourself to be.
Fine, they aren't lying. They're just ignorant.
Edit: My posts are not religious. Intelligent Design subscribers often describe themselves as atheists. Describing the evolution of Christianity is not the same as being critical of Christianity.
-
Christian fundamentalism was different before the Scientific Revolution. Now, Christian fundamentalists take a very literal reading of the Bible because they feel a necessity to look at the world in terms of objective truths. That is to say - they have adopted a scientific mindset that demands for absolute truth instead of moral ambiguity. They have a need for theory and evidence. It's just that their source of evidence is the Bible instead of the natural world.
Im more inclinded to call that a logical mindset, rather than a scientific mindset. Science is involved with both conducting experiements and then using logic to interpret the results. So I wouldn't say christian fundamentalists have a scientific mindset, rather just a logical one.
They claim that their ideas are based in modern science, but that they have come to different conclusions than the experts. However, their ideas are not based in modern science.
Yes, they have come to different conclusions. Countless times in human and scientific history radical thoughts have come to different conclusions to the 'experts' and been proven correct. Look at the Ether and its subsequently being disproved by the Michelson-Morley eexperiemt- until that point nearly every scientist believed in it, including Issac Newton and Maxwell. Even einstien commented on the logical need for the ether in relation to relativity, a thought which has now been completly dismissed.
And if defects are meant to be intentional, does that mean that we're meant to have poor eyesight, vulnerable immune systems, a whole host of genetic diseases, and so on and so on?
Yes, thats precisely what it means. Its entirely conceivable that either whoever inputed the intelligence was not good enough to make us perfect, or did not want us to be perfect. Is that so hard to believe? Look at graphics chips in computers- high end cards have functions and pipelines disabled to make new, lower end models that can be sold for less money. If you looked at a graphics card and saw that 4 pipelines were disabled, couldnt you then say that it must not be intelligently designed because it is not perfect? If you do not know of the intentions of whoever made it, you cant make those assumptions.
They deal with it poorly.
That doesnt make ID wrong, it makes some people dealing with it not intelligent. I dont base my beliefs on how other people deal with them, because that doesnt change facts.
Fine, they aren't lying. They're just ignorant.
Just like countless other 'ignorant' people who have changed the world?? Being against what other people believe does not make you ignorant in any factual sense.
My posts are not religious. Intelligent Design subscribers often describe themselves as atheists. Describing the evolution of Christianity is not the same as being critical of Christianity.
What?? I didnt mention christianity, this has nothing to do with it. I'm not christian and I certiantly dont believe in it. I didnt say your posts were religious. And you have free reign to criticise Christianity as much as you want- it doesnt bother me. ;)
-
I always liked the following priniciple:
"If things did not occur as they did, we would not be here to witness them."
Which sort of implies: "If the low probability outcome had not occured, we wouldn't be here to argue it didn't."
One wonderful thing about 'junk' DNA is that some of it actually does affect human development.
The other wonderful thing about it is that is raises the odds that a damaged area is non-critical.
That doesn't mean it was intelligently designed, (the human design--while amazing--is highly flawed,) just that there is more for us to learn.
-
Our genome is not the only possible one for sentient life, so you can toss that argument out the window as well.
-
I always liked the following priniciple:
"If things did not occur as they did, we would not be here to witness them."
Which sort of implies: "If the low probability outcome had not occured, we wouldn't be here to argue it didn't."
Thats true. When you're talking about the probability of events in the past, you're talking about the probability of them occuring in a particular way. The chance of Humans ending up alive on earth is 100%- the finer point is in the probability of it happening one particular way, or another particular way, according to differing theories.
That doesn't mean it was intelligently designed, (the human design--while amazing--is highly flawed,)
Just a minor point, but something can be flawed and still be intelligently designed. And something could be perfect, yet be the result of pure chance.
Our genome is not the only possible one for sentient life, so you can toss that argument out the window as well.
Toss out what arguement? I didnt see anyone making a point relating to that.
-
I think it more pertains to this: If we 'reset' the universe, would there be humans? ID/Creationists believe the human is too complex to evolve on its' own. Supporters of Evolution (myself one of them,) believe that it is perfectly plausible, because we wouldn't be here today if random chance hadn't created us (accompanied by other evidence of evolution.) Ultimately it is impossible to know, but I can't find myself believing in that. (I'd say "who created the creators?" however the "the creator(s) exist outside time & space" nulls that. The creators need not be a "being," though.)
Sometimes I forget that one. Proof of that concept: DRM. It is hardly ethical to create something flawed deliberately, unless that evil somehow underweighs preventing a greater evil.
I think zanzibar misinterpreted my statement as related to a highly specific outcome. Let me patch it:
+...If the low probability outcome of sentience from entropy had not occured,...
-...If the low probability outcome had not occured,...
-
because we wouldn't be here today if random chance hadn't created us (accompanied by other evidence of evolution.)
Thats the crux of the arguement- ID would say that Random chance didnt create us, and that some other intelligent source did. Therefore they would say that we would only be here today if that intelligent source aided in our creation again.
Us being here is not evidence of Random Chance creating us, it is evidence of something creating us. The question is what.
-
because we wouldn't be here today if random chance hadn't created us (accompanied by other evidence of evolution.)
Thats the crux of the arguement- ID would say that Random chance didnt create us, and that some other intelligent source did. Therefore they would say that we would only be here today if that intelligent source aided in our creation again.
Us being here is not evidence of Random Chance creating us, it is evidence of something creating us. The question is what.
The answer is random* chance.
*Random within the laws of biochemistry, so not really very random in fact. Relatively speaking.
-
An interesting dilemma. Both sides see our very existence as proof of their own philosophy. I still can't help but believe in the creative-destructive power of entropy. That still seems the most likely something , IMO.
Ah well, I think we've managed to condense the argument into its kernel which is impossible to 'win' a debate on. We should probably drop the thread now. :)
-
An interesting dilemma. Both sides see our very existence as proof of their own philosophy. I still can't help but believe in the creative-destructive power of entropy. That still seems the most likely something , IMO.
Ah well, I think we've managed to condense the argument into its kernel which is impossible to 'win' a debate on. We should probably drop the thread now. :)
No, I was just using his own logic against him.
-
No, I was just using his own logic against him.
And what particular logic is that? If you have any objections to what I said, quote and reply, dont just make general vague statements, that doesnt get anywhere.
An interesting dilemma. Both sides see our very existence as proof of their own philosophy. I still can't help but believe in the creative-destructive power of entropy. That still seems the most likely something , IMO.
Ah well, I think we've managed to condense the argument into its kernel which is impossible to 'win' a debate on. We should probably drop the thread now.
To debate which is right would then revert back to a debate about ID vs Evolution- and since no one here can claim to be an expert on either, theres no point having a debate about it. I second the motion to drop the thread, since its diverging off topic.
-
"We exist therefore we had a creator" is merely assertion, so I was merely asserting that our existence is evidence for random chance.
-
"We exist therefore we had a creator" is merely assertion, so I was merely asserting that our existence is evidence for random chance.
Oh, right. Well I said that in response to Monketh's claim, so In fact I was using his logic against him, and you're just restating his point. But its a valid point for both sides of the discussion.
-
"They misuse information theory like whoa"
officially my favorite zanzibar quote ever.