Talk about prejudice...

[Chris H]

The theory of intelligent design does not meet the criteria for a proper scientific theory, therefore has no place in a scientific debate.

I totally understand the teacher, who wanted to stick to cold hard facts instead of some wishy-washy mumbo-jumbo.

And please don't turn this thread into "Oh look at me! I'm smart" festival. What the hell does math have to do with that?

half way down the first page he asked about maths, since he was interested i brought up an interesting thing in math.

the thread diverted slightly from its original point and maths are fun so I didn't complain

Chris

 

[Zacharine]

1. human life, when it starts and ends. my best guess is that it begins at conception because of the 23 chromosones from both parents going into action and creating a new organism, its a tough question to answer no doubt but not impossible. when life ends is the harder one, all because of terry shchivo (if i even spelled the name right)

2. both literal and philosophical question, lots of numbers i see thrown around so im not sure as to the real number we use and philosophical as in when will we as a people be able to comprehend so much more than what we know right now?

3. well thats one step closer lol but unfortunatly my understanding of how math works doesnt stop with just the answer because as my father told me "when you can break something down to the point where can fully explain it to a full blown nimrod, thats when you truly understand something".

1. Really, depends on how you define human life. If the definition is a cell containing the human genome and capable of self replication then the answer is the moment of conception. If the definition is about having a reptile-level brain (though without consicousness) then the answer is about 2 months after conception. And life ends when the requirements I edited to the earlier post are fulfilled.

2. Literal: The answer would be 'always'. Likely every human has used more than 7% of their brain at any given moment and it is also unlikely that the figure (whatever it might be) of neurons firing at any given instant has changed all too much during the past 10 000 years. Philosophical: Next year. We are constantly standing on top of a tower our predecessors built for us with the inquisitive nature and every new discovery, every new scientific paper published adds another brick to the tower, allowing us to see more, farther and clearer than before. Compare your current cellphone to one from the 1990s. Think of the speeds you are surfing the net with and you realize that 30 years ago most computer HDs (if you could call them such) couldn't write data as fast. I mean really, my pocket calculator has more computerized calculating power than what was used when they sent man to the moon! 100 years ago TV was a fabled myth imagined by madmen. 150 years ago flight with an craft heavier than air was thought impossible.

We constantly improve and I for one rejoice whenever I read mankind discovering and understanding yet another piece of this wonderful place called universe.

3. Then prepare yourself to spending 10 years at a university earning a doctorate from mathematics. Besides, math changes over the years as well, so no-one truly knows everything.

 

[AngloDoom]

2. when will we be able to use more than just 7% of our minds, and when we do, what will happen?

We can.
It's called a seizure.

You only use 10% of your brain at a time.
It's like lights in a house.
You have ten rooms, but you can only have the lights on in one at a time or else the circuit will blow.

At least, that's what I've read. I can't back it up with proof, but I trust my sources.

Pretty much that.

The whole 10% thing comes from the fact that we use roughly ten per cent of our brain at one time, but we do use every bit of it at some point. If we didn't evolution would have shrank it out of us anyway.


On top, however, she's probably just scared of offending someone. Teachers get a lot of shit from mentioning 'hot topics' these days.

 

[hypothetical fact]

Your teacher wanted to avoid a flamewar, simple as that.

 

[Skeleon]

Sorry, but... intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory, it's an attempt to crowbar religion into science.

Your teacher was completely right to do what she did.
As for Indy: Aren't we all a little sad?

 

[Xender90]

Actually I have been studying this exact topic for the last two years. The first amendment permits discussion of religion in class rooms as long as the teacher does not take a side. If your teacher said you can't talk about religion then she is abridging your freedom of speech...at least for now. (This is for the U.S. so if you live elsewhere then I don't know.)

For ID It is just as scientific as Darwinism. Both use unbiased data gathered from the the world. One example that summarizes ID is this. If you are walking along and you see a rock siting on the ground and someone asks you how did that rock come to be there. you could say it could have been their forever. But say you see a watch siting on the ground. You would not say it has been there forever. you would say it has a maker.

Interesting side note: life was defined by biology books as beginning at conception. This was changed after Row vs. Wade with no new scientific discoveries. yeh for science.

 

[bjj hero]

People take archeology wanting to be Inde. The truth is closer to minimum wage with extra cow pats.

ID's argument pretty much stops at "This example doesn't fit into evolution very well with our current understanding... so god did it, dont bother investigating further". ID doesn't meet the scientific definition of a theory.

If we'd followed this model of science we'd still be living in caves, scared of the sun. ID is about giving up on answers we don't currently have. Its anti-science.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

Intelligent design is just another word for creationism. It was an attempt to introduce religion into American schools. I'm not sure, but i think combining religion and education is unconstitutional.
Intelligent design started out as an honest attempt to counter evolution but has no real basis in fact. It is all just supposition with no supporting evidence. Evolution is still just a theory, but at least there is evidence

 

[Mackinator]

Don't bring intelligent design into a discussion with your teacher anymore?

My thoughts exactly.

Some people just relate the two together.

 

[Snugglebunny]

I'd like to raise my hand at this point and say im an athiest and i'd subscribe to the idea of intelligent design ^^ having done A-level Biology, some of the things we learn about are just SO amazing...

You're an atheist and you believe that all life was created and manipulated by an intelligent supernatural agent? That kinda goes against the definition of atheism.

I think that makes them Agnostic AKA, believing in a higher being, but with no real spefications beyond that.

FOR THE RECORD: Please do NOT make this a thread about how much Christianity sucks. Yes, we get it, you don't like getting dressed up for an hour on sundays, but thats not a good reason to go slandering a religion with little more than a basic undertsand and swhat you just read on the internet to keep your argument afloat. Its like assuming since one dog is brown, then all dogs must be brown; or if you take that dog home and it piddles on the floor, then its the fault of the kennel you got the dog from, it makes marginal sense.

If someone who is Christian offended or hurt you in any way, than I sincerely apologize on behalf of my brother or sister in faith, however, just remember God's law is one of love, so please don't firebomb a church. I mean, Jesus loves you.

 

[Ignignoct]

So i'm in my anthropology class having a discussion with the teacher about why humans are unique and i mention the words intelligent design and she immediately says she wont bring religion into the discussion and ends it by changing the subject completely and moving on as if the conversation never took place. I mean wtf, i never meant religion in the first place so what gives her the right to just assume and end what couldve been a complete rational discussion? mind you this teacher has a phd and later in the class said she was sad because indiana jones wasnt real -_- your thoughts?

Please give an example of Intelligent Design that doesn't include one of the major religion's gods.

Seriously.

Also, please note that teachers can be fired and made into social pariahs for telling students controversial ideas on religion such as, "I don't think God exists." It's for everyone's good that they don't discuss the matter.

 

[Xender90]

bjj hero, post #53 is right ID does not fit into science because it can't be tested. However Darwinism doesn't fit into science either for the same reason. If Darwinism could PROVE two different animals had a common ancestor or if it could manually evolve one type of animal in to two like they tried to do with fruit flys, THEN it would be scientific.

 

[ygetoff]

FOR THE RECORD: Please do NOT make this a thread about how much Christianity sucks. Yes, we get it, you don't like getting dressed up for an hour on sundays, but thats not a good reason to go slandering a religion with little more than a basic undertsand and swhat you just read on the internet to keep your argument afloat. Its like assuming since one dog is brown, then all dogs must be brown; or if you take that dog home and it piddles on the floor, then its the fault of the kennel you got the dog from, it makes marginal sense.

If someone who is Christian offended or hurt you in any way, than I sincerely apologize on behalf of my brother or sister in faith, however, just remember God's law is one of love, so please don't firebomb a church. I mean, Jesus loves you.

Perhaps one can be an atheist for another reason, perhaps they thought really really hard about it and decided that atheism makes more sense to them.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

FOR THE RECORD: Please do NOT make this a thread about how much Christianity sucks.

No need to worry. I won't say anything about Christianity or any other religion unless it is appropriate to the discussion (ie, if someone states something in their religion as fact). I even stepped into Muslim hate thread a while back, defending the religion from people who assumed all Muslims are extremists. It's like saying all Christians are fundamentalists, or all Jews are Hasidic.

I have nothing against religions unless they bring their rules and restrictions upon the public, without more justification than "our god commands it." Also, I will challenge any statement made on the nature of the universe if I disagree with it, and am able to back up my counter point. Sounds fair?

 

[BioHazard19]

Scientology is just another money-making scam disguised as a religion.

 

[FallenRainbows]

Again with religion. It can be neither proved nor disproved BUT you can prove god is INSANE OR NOT REAL.

Omniscience: All-knowing

This mean having complete and utter flawless perfect knowledge of all things that have been are being done and will be done, and even the sub concious thoughts of every single thing in the universe, complete knowledge of how many billionth of a mm that rock will erode every billionth of a nano second of every rock on every planet in every single realm of existence. lets say god IS real. Man was made in gods image this requires god to have a conciousness a thought path in order to think or such a thing to give to us. One single mind with a conciousness cannot possible hope to survive omniscience the brain couldn't handle it, if god brain is more devolved he would still be driven insane.

Also. Big bang what made that, random gases and a huge fluke. what made that? God? who made God? God was there at the beginning but its totally impossible to have a random assortment of gasses at the beginning? What made that? what made that? The universe CANNOT exist, it need a beginning what made the beginning. If gases is a stupid answer, so is god, all things must have a beginning even gods. Existence itself should not exist. So who cares? its impossible to answer, its impossible to disprove/prove ANYTHING. LET IT BE.

 

[sallene]

For ID It is just as scientific as Darwinism. Both use unbiased data gathered from the the world. One example that summarizes ID is this. If you are walking along and you see a rock siting on the ground and someone asks you how did that rock come to be there. you could say it could have been their forever. But say you see a watch siting on the ground. You would not say it has been there forever. you would say it has a maker.

Not trying to be snippy, but you need to go back and read up on what science is and how it arrives at it's conclusions and theories. ID, Creationsim and religion are in no way/shape/form anything like science.


Science proposes a question and searches for an answer, this result in the creation of a hypothesis or theory for this question, they then seek to disprove this theory and if it is disproved they start the process over agian.(at least I think thats how it goes, been awile since I myself took a science class).

ID and Religion does not ask any questions without the answer being already obviious in their minds(that being goddidit).


Science seeks the How and the Why.

ID and Religion seeks the because.

 

[Snugglebunny]

FOR THE RECORD: Please do NOT make this a thread about how much Christianity sucks.

No need to worry. I won't say anything about Christianity or any other religion unless it is appropriate to the discussion (ie, if someone states something in their religion as fact). I even stepped into Muslim hate thread a while back, defending the religion from people who assumed all Muslims are extremists. It's like saying all Christians are fundamentalists, or all Jews are Hasidic.

I have nothing against religions unless they bring their rules and restrictions upon the public, without more justification than "our god commands it." Also, I will challenge any statement made on the nature of the universe if I disagree with it, and am able to back up my counter point. Sounds fair?

I really agree with that, one of the biggest issues with the United States is that we condemn other, mostly Islamic, for their government being so deeply rooted in religious law, but then we elect and even encourage the 'strong Christian morals' in out own candidates for government. I mean, there was that entire issue a while back about how a member of congress wanted to be sworn in on the Koran instead of the Bible, and the justice refused to do it.

I mean, what does that say about us as a nation? Freedom of religion is a right everyone should be able to enjoy, not just toleration of it.

Also, any person that uses the excuse 'God commands it' to justify violence or anything like it, is sorely misguided.

 

[Inarticulate_Underachiever]

Intelligent design is controversial.

Controversy gets people fired.

 

[Xender90]

I think Sallene is thinking of the scientific method. this is:
1# Ask a Question: were does everything come from?
2# Do Background Research: Both ID and Darwinism have done this (Yes even ID look it up.)
3# Construct a Hypothesis: again both have done this.
4# Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: Here is were BOTH ID and Darwinism go wrong. nether of them have yet done an experiment that really proves one or the other.
5# Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6# Communicate Your Results