Dumb Design vs Intelligent design

    Quote from The Postman

    Quick question Mawibse. Do you think that Intelligent Design has any place in the science classroom given that it is not scientific, what-so-ever?

    I think ID should be dealt with by science and not religion, unless you love the narrow christian view on the theory.

    Its just like teaching about UFOS in religion class. It should be investigated scientifically and not by ppl who think the stars are too far for a spaceshuttle..... so it must be impossible. Also i think youre confusing 'scientific' with 'proven'.

    As RD said, there is actually more sides to the ID than just the more popular looney toon side that is just genesis explained with science. There are actually really neat tie-ins with several other unorthodox theories about life in space and with the endless universes and so on.

    My favourite being the one that sounds more like a Star Trek episode than a valid theory, it says that space isn't actually endless, but when traveled far enough time starts to move and not space, thusly we enter in to another universe, kinda like time travel, there are infinite number (infinite because every action makes another "branch") of universes which all are in a hex like map, and timetravel just actually doesn't move you through time, but it moves you hundreds of billions of lightyears in space to another universe.

    I like because it makes time travel possible and it explains more clearly the infinite space to a small human brain that can't comprehend something that is infinite.

    Quote from Kosmo

    I like because it makes time travel possible and it explains more clearly the infinite space to a small human brain that can't comprehend something that is infinite.

    Pfft I do time travel all the time no big deal.... one second for each second.

    Quote from Kosmo

    space isn't actually endless, but when traveled far enough time starts to move and not space, thusly we enter in to another universe

    Hehe, time must pass for space to move, and space not moving would be the same thing as if time stopped and the distance to another universe is not counted in lightyears, if it where it wouldnt be another universe.

    Quote from mawibse

    Hehe, time must pass for space to move, and space not moving would be the same thing as if time stopped and the distance to another universe is not counted in lightyears, if it where it wouldnt be another universe.

    Nah, you just didn't understand it, the theory is actually quite genious, it was in a Finnish science publication, I don't remember who were the original scientists who cooked up the whole theory. You shouldn't judge it by my description of it, after all, they are scientists and what I recall of you, you are not

    And as I wouldn't count ID as something very scientific, there is no harm teaching it, or rather telling about it in high school or college, since many have been unaware of it.

    Quote from mawibse

    JynxDaddy for a more detailed description of phase 2:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

    Though it didnt start with RNA as it says, but you have to wait a couple of years, I think, before they got that tricky bit more sorted out.

    Sure, if they in church everytime they say something about man being made by god from dust on the ground with god breathing life into him by the nostrils also mentions the theory put forward by Darwin on how god instrumented mans creation, and that the bible is more of a spiritual guide and not to be taken litterally.

    All sarcasm aside though, do you seriously think it has a place in a science classroom?

    Quote from Kosmo

    You shouldn't judge it by my description of it, after all, they are scientists and what I recall of you, you are not

    Your description is all I have to judge it with, my fault since I'm no scientist no doubt. :roll:

    Quote from The Postman

    All sarcasm aside though, do you seriously think it has a place in a science classroom?

    Heck no, whats next algebra in history class?

    If someone asks about it in science class refer to religion or philosophy class.

    I just wish those ID retards would stop using their one and only thing against evolution theory "it's too complicated", if they don't understand it they should just keep their mouths shut.

    ID is way too easy to be true, how the fuck can you explain anything with "it just is" all the time?

    Well "it just is" isn't super uncommon amongst scientists either but at least they want to know more.

    And the mousetrap anology sucks because I can think of lots of uses for each individual part of the mouse trap so no reason for each part not to get evolved.

    Infact, if you think of it thats how the mousetrap came to be in the first place, wood working, metalurgy into springs, claps and what not was not created for the sole purpose of making mouse traps so...

    The only reason for a non religous study to refer to something religious by name is to get attention which nocks off lots of points in my book.

    Perhaps we should call the search for a unified theory for "scientific god"?

    Adam is a proper metaphor for the first human, so I don't see anything bad about it.

    "Scientific god" it's that good term since god is not a scientific term, maybe it should be more like deus ex machina or something like that

    It surely changed everything.

    Quote from mawibse

    The only reason for a non religous study to refer to something religious by name is to get attention which nocks off lots of points in my book. Perhaps we should call the search for a unified theory for "scientific god"?

    The project is called the genographic project, not search for Adam. The name of the show, Search for Adam is just short and descriptive. Besides that, theres not much points to knock off from genetic research, unless u dont believe in DNA

    Quote from RD

    Yesterday on National Geographic there was a show about our common ancestor called Search for Adam. The spectabular results of the genographic project:Adam lived 60.000 years ago near Tanzania Africa. O m g.

    All humans are descendants of this one human and not from apes or the neanderthals or homo erectus or whatever.

    http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/cha ... _adam.html

    :giantrolleyesvomitingsmallerrolleyes:

    That article sounds like trash if they don't think we came from common branching ancestory.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login