Return to General Talk

Intelligent Design

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby StlSluggers » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:04 pm

da1chipo wrote:I might be getting this wrong, but is a six-fingered hand more complicated than a five-fingered hand? I'm pretty sure it is.

No, it's not more complicated. It's simply an additional reproduction of a current part. More complicated would be creating a hand with an attachment that does something completely new. For instance, if your hand grew proboscis on top that allowed you to squirt stuff out of it. That's more complex because it's different.

I should clarify, though, that I do believe in evolution insomuch as I believe in the existence of minor, improving genetic mutations. I mean, they're everywhere. I don't see how I could deny them. What I don't believe in is the idea that one thing can undergo a series of miniscule mutations over a long span of time and then suddenly become something 100% different.

I guess a great practical example of my belief is a computer motherboard. It can be upgraded and rearranged, but it has certain operating limits that can never be exceeded.
Image
Want an easy icon?
http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=133
All you have to do is beat a few guys at picking Sunday's winners.[/url]
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14414
(Past Year: -302)
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Postby acsguitar » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:08 pm

StlSluggers wrote:
da1chipo wrote:I might be getting this wrong, but is a six-fingered hand more complicated than a five-fingered hand? I'm pretty sure it is.

No, it's not more complicated. It's simply an additional reproduction of a current part. More complicated would be creating a hand with an attachment that does something completely new. For instance, if your hand grew proboscis on top that allowed you to squirt stuff out of it. That's more complex because it's different.

I should clarify, though, that I do believe in evolution insomuch as I believe in the existence of minor, improving genetic mutations. I mean, they're everywhere. I don't see how I could deny them. What I don't believe in is the idea that one thing can undergo a series of miniscule mutations over a long span of time and then suddenly become something 100% different.

I guess a great practical example of my belief is a computer motherboard. It can be upgraded and rearranged, but it has certain operating limits that can never be exceeded.


I don't think we are 100% complete...over another 1000 years who know what our abilities will be....Due to our bad poluttion i can see us having incredible breathing abilities due to having to hold our breath or something...we aren't done yet
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26605
(Past Year: -117)
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Postby CubsFan7724 » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:09 pm

acsguitar wrote:Again the Catholic church is trying to make everyone in the country follow their rules and beliefs. Far Conservative Catholics are supposed to try to convert people to Jesus. This is a problem when you have them in the whitehouse/governemnt.

This is purely a convention of the Consevative Right Wing trying to push their agenda onto everyone.

This "Intelligent Design" has merit I guess but shouldn't really be taught.

There really isn't anything to teach about it. I believe its ok to say "Something may have created the tinyiest atom and maybee someone like a "God" put it into play."

However, Just saying blindly that "GOD" created everything is wrong. God may have created evolution but to ignore all science fact and say that everything was put here in its right place is balony.

Catholics have nothing to do with Intelligent Design, so I really don't see where your loathing of them is coming from. And, which Catholic is in the White House again? John Kerry? Oh wait, he lost. Bush is a born-again Christian. If you are going to hate the administration because of their religious beliefs, at least get their religious beliefs correct instead of mindlessly blaming Catholics. :-t
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6410
(Past Year: -16)
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby DK » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:10 pm

CubsFan7724 wrote:
DK wrote:
Half Massed wrote:What I always find interesting about this arguement is that people seem to believe strongly one way or the other. Why can't the truth be somewhat of a mix of the two, or even a mix of all religious/scientific beliefs? Maybe God created the Earth and life and all that stuff (there's creationism) for a personal reason, something like wondering "Who am I?" From there He sent pieces of himself, such as drops from an ocean, to Earth where they would go through many lives and forms (there's reincarnation) experiencing evolution, experience, and involution (there's evolution) until this drop returned to God.

The point is, nothing is proven, so really nothing can be said to be the correct idea. There may be more physical proof of evolution than any creationist theory, but that doesn't make it better or even right.

So that brings about the question, what should be taught in schools? One answer would be nothing, but that is unsatisfactory as such a complex topic should not be ignored and children are curious about such things. However, if a school decides to teach one, the others should have fair representation also, and that means ALL the others. This would take a very long time to teach and the teacher with their natural bias would most likely focus on one and slightly ridicule the others. Another solution would be to put the different ideas in different classes, as has been suggested earlier. Science for evolution, religion for creationism and so on. This doesn't allow a student to study them side-by-side though and natural connotations with each class name would put subconcious biases in a student's head. Another possibility would be to create a whole semester class on the topic to examine each in depth. This is the best option in my mind, but not every school can manage this.

Really, it is up to the school and no law should be created to make one be taught over the other as no one can really be proven. This topic will always be open to debate and controversy. As Art said earlier in this thread, anyone who claims to be right on either side is a fool.


That's the exact point, though. Evolution isn't supported by any specific religion, it's supported by science. Creationism isn't supported by any specific science, it's supported by religion. It's the same as saying let's teach math in history.

Creationism is directly connected to religion, therefore it should be taught in religion class. Evolution is directly connected to science, therefore it should be taught in science class. It's relatively simple.

Also, your first two paragraphs essentially define where I am on the subject (I am an agnostic, although I lean towards no God).

DK, you are a unitarian, correct? But you don't really believe in a god? Isn't Unitarianism the belief in the oneness of God?


In a word, no. The "Unity" in Unitarian refers to the Unity of man, rather than the one-ness of any specific God. We encourage those to choose their own path and figure out for themselves what they believe, rather than a strict religious doctrine that is so common in other religions. The seven basic principles are here if you want to take a look at them.
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9077
(Past Year: -456)
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby CubsFan7724 » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:13 pm

DK wrote:
CubsFan7724 wrote:
DK wrote:
Half Massed wrote:What I always find interesting about this arguement is that people seem to believe strongly one way or the other. Why can't the truth be somewhat of a mix of the two, or even a mix of all religious/scientific beliefs? Maybe God created the Earth and life and all that stuff (there's creationism) for a personal reason, something like wondering "Who am I?" From there He sent pieces of himself, such as drops from an ocean, to Earth where they would go through many lives and forms (there's reincarnation) experiencing evolution, experience, and involution (there's evolution) until this drop returned to God.

The point is, nothing is proven, so really nothing can be said to be the correct idea. There may be more physical proof of evolution than any creationist theory, but that doesn't make it better or even right.

So that brings about the question, what should be taught in schools? One answer would be nothing, but that is unsatisfactory as such a complex topic should not be ignored and children are curious about such things. However, if a school decides to teach one, the others should have fair representation also, and that means ALL the others. This would take a very long time to teach and the teacher with their natural bias would most likely focus on one and slightly ridicule the others. Another solution would be to put the different ideas in different classes, as has been suggested earlier. Science for evolution, religion for creationism and so on. This doesn't allow a student to study them side-by-side though and natural connotations with each class name would put subconcious biases in a student's head. Another possibility would be to create a whole semester class on the topic to examine each in depth. This is the best option in my mind, but not every school can manage this.

Really, it is up to the school and no law should be created to make one be taught over the other as no one can really be proven. This topic will always be open to debate and controversy. As Art said earlier in this thread, anyone who claims to be right on either side is a fool.


That's the exact point, though. Evolution isn't supported by any specific religion, it's supported by science. Creationism isn't supported by any specific science, it's supported by religion. It's the same as saying let's teach math in history.

Creationism is directly connected to religion, therefore it should be taught in religion class. Evolution is directly connected to science, therefore it should be taught in science class. It's relatively simple.

Also, your first two paragraphs essentially define where I am on the subject (I am an agnostic, although I lean towards no God).

DK, you are a unitarian, correct? But you don't really believe in a god? Isn't Unitarianism the belief in the oneness of God?


In a word, no. The "Unity" in Unitarian refers to the Unity of man, rather than the one-ness of any specific God. We encourage those to choose their own path and figure out for themselves what they believe, rather than a strict religious doctrine that is so common in other religions. The seven basic principles are here if you want to take a look at them.

Oh, you are Universal Unitarian? I guess Wikipedia was talking about the other types.
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6410
(Past Year: -16)
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby Simulacrum » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:13 pm

acsguitar wrote:
StlSluggers wrote:
da1chipo wrote:I might be getting this wrong, but is a six-fingered hand more complicated than a five-fingered hand? I'm pretty sure it is.

No, it's not more complicated. It's simply an additional reproduction of a current part. More complicated would be creating a hand with an attachment that does something completely new. For instance, if your hand grew proboscis on top that allowed you to squirt stuff out of it. That's more complex because it's different.

I should clarify, though, that I do believe in evolution insomuch as I believe in the existence of minor, improving genetic mutations. I mean, they're everywhere. I don't see how I could deny them. What I don't believe in is the idea that one thing can undergo a series of miniscule mutations over a long span of time and then suddenly become something 100% different.

I guess a great practical example of my belief is a computer motherboard. It can be upgraded and rearranged, but it has certain operating limits that can never be exceeded.


I don't think we are 100% complete...over another 1000 years who know what our abilities will be....Due to our bad poluttion i can see us having incredible breathing abilities due to having to hold our breath or something...we aren't done yet


If you ever stop evolving you die... viruses alone would decimate us. I think in 1000 years there will be even more difference between genders- I think the males will continue to get bigger and bigger while the women shrink smaller and smaller. Much less body hair for both genders too.

Not to mention in 1000 years we better have a new planet colonized- we've almost finished trashing this one :-?
Simulacrum
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Chief Pixel PusherCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 9708
(Past Year: -167)
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: On a Mission

Postby DK » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:15 pm

StlSluggers wrote:
da1chipo wrote:I might be getting this wrong, but is a six-fingered hand more complicated than a five-fingered hand? I'm pretty sure it is.

No, it's not more complicated. It's simply an additional reproduction of a current part. More complicated would be creating a hand with an attachment that does something completely new. For instance, if your hand grew proboscis on top that allowed you to squirt stuff out of it. That's more complex because it's different.


Image

Proof. :D
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9077
(Past Year: -456)
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby DK » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:16 pm

CubsFan7724 wrote:
DK wrote:
CubsFan7724 wrote:
DK wrote:
Half Massed wrote:What I always find interesting about this arguement is that people seem to believe strongly one way or the other. Why can't the truth be somewhat of a mix of the two, or even a mix of all religious/scientific beliefs? Maybe God created the Earth and life and all that stuff (there's creationism) for a personal reason, something like wondering "Who am I?" From there He sent pieces of himself, such as drops from an ocean, to Earth where they would go through many lives and forms (there's reincarnation) experiencing evolution, experience, and involution (there's evolution) until this drop returned to God.

The point is, nothing is proven, so really nothing can be said to be the correct idea. There may be more physical proof of evolution than any creationist theory, but that doesn't make it better or even right.

So that brings about the question, what should be taught in schools? One answer would be nothing, but that is unsatisfactory as such a complex topic should not be ignored and children are curious about such things. However, if a school decides to teach one, the others should have fair representation also, and that means ALL the others. This would take a very long time to teach and the teacher with their natural bias would most likely focus on one and slightly ridicule the others. Another solution would be to put the different ideas in different classes, as has been suggested earlier. Science for evolution, religion for creationism and so on. This doesn't allow a student to study them side-by-side though and natural connotations with each class name would put subconcious biases in a student's head. Another possibility would be to create a whole semester class on the topic to examine each in depth. This is the best option in my mind, but not every school can manage this.

Really, it is up to the school and no law should be created to make one be taught over the other as no one can really be proven. This topic will always be open to debate and controversy. As Art said earlier in this thread, anyone who claims to be right on either side is a fool.


That's the exact point, though. Evolution isn't supported by any specific religion, it's supported by science. Creationism isn't supported by any specific science, it's supported by religion. It's the same as saying let's teach math in history.

Creationism is directly connected to religion, therefore it should be taught in religion class. Evolution is directly connected to science, therefore it should be taught in science class. It's relatively simple.

Also, your first two paragraphs essentially define where I am on the subject (I am an agnostic, although I lean towards no God).

DK, you are a unitarian, correct? But you don't really believe in a god? Isn't Unitarianism the belief in the oneness of God?


In a word, no. The "Unity" in Unitarian refers to the Unity of man, rather than the one-ness of any specific God. We encourage those to choose their own path and figure out for themselves what they believe, rather than a strict religious doctrine that is so common in other religions. The seven basic principles are here if you want to take a look at them.

Oh, you are Universal Unitarian? I guess Wikipedia was talking about the other types.


Correct. Well, a Unitarian Universalist, but that's just semantics.
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9077
(Past Year: -456)
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby CubsFan7724 » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:20 pm

StlSluggers wrote:
da1chipo wrote:I might be getting this wrong, but is a six-fingered hand more complicated than a five-fingered hand? I'm pretty sure it is.

No, it's not more complicated. It's simply an additional reproduction of a current part. More complicated would be creating a hand with an attachment that does something completely new. For instance, if your hand grew proboscis on top that allowed you to squirt stuff out of it. That's more complex because it's different.

I should clarify, though, that I do believe in evolution insomuch as I believe in the existence of minor, improving genetic mutations. I mean, they're everywhere. I don't see how I could deny them. What I don't believe in is the idea that one thing can undergo a series of miniscule mutations over a long span of time and then suddenly become something 100% different.

I guess a great practical example of my belief is a computer motherboard. It can be upgraded and rearranged, but it has certain operating limits that can never be exceeded.

Those mutations build up, and pass on if they are successful. Over a span of millions of millions of years, time you cannot even begin to comprehend, the mutated strain is the dominant one and is the one that is left. And the time from one celled organisms to complex multicelled is like billions of years.
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6410
(Past Year: -16)
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby Simulacrum » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:42 pm

Single celled prokaryotic organisms have been on earth for around 2 billion years.

Human-like neanderthals have existed on earth for 80,000 years. Shocking isn't it, how little time humans have been in existence? :-?
Simulacrum
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Chief Pixel PusherCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberWeb Supporter
Posts: 9708
(Past Year: -167)
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: On a Mission

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron