In my view:
Intelligent design should be addressed, in a separate class that should be mandatory introductory class on Philosophy that should be taught the sixth year of public education. If properly taught, this class should motivate ALL children to retain, use, and evaluate what they learn throughout their early education.
Intelligent design is based on a view over 7,500 years old, and furthermore, is the heart of American Ideology. It has never been disproven; is reinforced by every avenue of observation, and is that view that has informed much of the Western and Eastern Worlds for more than 70 centuries.
Saying a child should not learn intelligent design is like saying they should not learn the philosophy of Decartes.
His seminal statement "Cognito et Sum" (That I think, I am) is a manifestation of the entire basis of the distinction between Perception and Observation and informed Francis Bacon's natural philosophical analysis that inspired the Scientific Method.
One of the most prominent concepts of Intelligent Design has been expressed as Deus ex Machina (God From Machine), and describes a fortuitous person or thing that suddenly arrives and solves a seemingly insoluble difficulty. While in story telling this seems like cheating, in life, this type of figure might be welcome and heroic. This present the nature of hidden cause; the basis for the entire research of Sir Isaac Newton, and the mathematics of Voltaire... To say nothing of Einstein.
It is also crucial to the understanding of Literature, architecture, sculpture, anatomy, mathematics, chemistry, media and social studies, and judicial civic studies... as it has influenced every factor of our lives sine the point systematic observation of the motion of the sun and the seasons became the means by which we categorize and reference the experiences of our life. TIME, if not our own Psyche, is the greatest evidence of Intelligent Design. The very idea that there exists the possibility for a standardized pattern of Intelligence, the notion of education, is an extension of Intelligent Design.
For example, The notion of Deus ex Machina is applied to a revelation within a story experienced by a character, narrator, etc, which involves the individual realizing that the complicated, sometimes perilous or mundane and perhaps seemingly unrelated sequence of events leading up to this point in the story are joined together by some profound concept. It is this "peer interaction" that is the reason kids should be classed, to evolve in their human interactions and reflect on their humanity to resolve their moral fiber. This is also the basis of profound theater and music theory, and is crucial to understanding Shakespeare, which is required reading, and also Dante, which should be. Thus the unexpected and timely intervention is aimed at the meaning of the story rather than a physical event in the plot. This is exactly the way a therapist develops the psychological profile of the patient, through his interviews.
Without that element, the Jewish "Mezel Mazloth," the Chinese "Tao Tai Chi", the English Primum Mobile, the South American Pachamam inan, the Hawaiian Kumulipo, the Roman Vniversum Scientia, the Macedodian Agathopathos, the Egyptian Tuat Ma'at, all of which indicate the INTELLIGENT DESIGN, the motive for our understanding of our existence loses all emphasis and passion, which defines the HUMAN element of the body of knowledge we call Science, or Scientia,.. i.e. "Intelligence".
Without this understanding a child, will NEVER be able to apply what he learns to his life outside of his fucking job, and will only be happy when his therapist introduces him to the very notions which he should have been introduced to when he was developing social skills.
Removing that essence of Wonder makes school a utilitarian training camp to bring forth workers. Congratulations, the reality of national socialism is upon us in the courts, as it odorns them all with an armband of denial of essential tenets that define how humans have come to qualify and quantify their existence since they were motivated to begin keeping records.
Don't get me wrong, an equal emphasis on educated skepticism is easily achievable, and highly recommended, and just as pertinent.
AMERICAN HISTORY *IS DEFINED AND BASED* ON TRUTHS INDICATED BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN:
From The Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
A Case for Intelligent Design by an Enemy of Tyranny.
-
windlord
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:53 am
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) Intelligent design is based on a view over 7,500 years old, and furthermore, is the heart of American Ideology. It has never been disproven; is reinforced by every avenue of observation, and is that view that has informed much of the Western and Eastern Worlds for more than 70 centuries.
On the contrary, it has been disproved several times, every single point that seemed to be a mayor score -like the failure by reformed darwinian evolution to explain the reapareance of capabilities lost- has been sucesfully adressed by science, nowadays there're no points in favour of "inteligent design".
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) Saying a child should not learn intelligent design is like saying they should not learn the philosophy of Decartes.
His seminal statement "Cognito et Sum" (That I think, I am) is a manifestation of the entire basis of the distinction between Perception and Observation and informed Francis Bacon's natural philosophical analysis that inspired the Scientific Method.
Well the statement was "Cogito ergo sum" (I then I am, which philosophically speaking is something very different from true existence, and whose originality is contested since it's a bit less than the logical inversion of the theological argument from San Agustin of Hipona, made in the early middle ages). By the way, Frances Bacon was a bit earlier than Descartes and developed his scientific method even before descartes started publishing two years after bacon died.
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) One of the most prominent concepts of Intelligent Design has been expressed as Deus ex Machina (God From Machine), and describes a fortuitous person or thing that suddenly arrives and solves a seemingly insoluble difficulty. While in story telling this seems like cheating, in life, this type of figure might be welcome and heroic. This present the nature of hidden cause; the basis for the entire research of Sir Isaac Newton, and the mathematics of Voltaire... To say nothing of Einstein.
That concept of Aristotelic origin as the prime motor, has served to some extend but fails miserabily on the quantum level which is the real basis of reality.
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) It is also crucial to the understanding of Literature, architecture, sculpture, anatomy, mathematics, chemistry, media and social studies, and judicial civic studies... as it has influenced every factor of our lives sine the point systematic observation of the motion of the sun and the seasons became the means by which we categorize and reference the experiences of our life. TIME, if not our own Psyche, is the greatest evidence of Intelligent Design. The very idea that there exists the possibility for a standardized pattern of Intelligence, the notion of education, is an extension of Intelligent Design.
The fact that an aristotelic concept has influenced our past does not mean it has to be given as truth.
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) It is this "peer interaction" that is the reason kids should be classed, to evolve in their human interactions and reflect on their humanity to resolve their moral fiber.
Sorry but as early as the late XVII century christians already acknowledged that morals / ethics don't need god to exist and an atheist could achieved it all alone. If I recall correctly that was partly voltaire's work.
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) This is also the basis of profound theater and music theory,
At least music theory profound basis is the mathematical relationships between frecuencies, nothin' else but nothing more!
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) Without that element, the Jewish "Mezel Mazloth," the Chinese "Tao Tai Chi", the English Primum Mobile, the South American Pachamam inan, the Hawaiian Kumulipo, the Roman Vniversum Scientia, the Macedodian Agathopathos, the Egyptian Tuat Ma'at, all of which indicate the INTELLIGENT DESIGN, the motive for our understanding of our existence loses all emphasis and passion, which defines the HUMAN element of the body of knowledge we call Science, or Scientia,.. i.e. "Intelligence".
Not at all, what we're or feel is independent of the first motor / god / primun mobile, etc... all you're using is the old aristothelic concepts against modern ones, probably less evident but nearest to the truth than that old concept.
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) Removing that essence of Wonder makes school a utilitarian training camp to bring forth workers. Congratulations, the reality of national socialism is upon us in the courts, as it odorns them all with an armband of denial of essential tenets that define how humans have come to qualify and quantify their existence since they were motivated to begin keeping records.
What you're using is a logical fault: if a not b then d is truth without giving reasons about why b influences over d -a totally different object-.It might have great wording but you couldn't be more wrong.
On the contrary, it has been disproved several times, every single point that seemed to be a mayor score -like the failure by reformed darwinian evolution to explain the reapareance of capabilities lost- has been sucesfully adressed by science, nowadays there're no points in favour of "inteligent design".
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) Saying a child should not learn intelligent design is like saying they should not learn the philosophy of Decartes.
His seminal statement "Cognito et Sum" (That I think, I am) is a manifestation of the entire basis of the distinction between Perception and Observation and informed Francis Bacon's natural philosophical analysis that inspired the Scientific Method.
Well the statement was "Cogito ergo sum" (I then I am, which philosophically speaking is something very different from true existence, and whose originality is contested since it's a bit less than the logical inversion of the theological argument from San Agustin of Hipona, made in the early middle ages). By the way, Frances Bacon was a bit earlier than Descartes and developed his scientific method even before descartes started publishing two years after bacon died.
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) One of the most prominent concepts of Intelligent Design has been expressed as Deus ex Machina (God From Machine), and describes a fortuitous person or thing that suddenly arrives and solves a seemingly insoluble difficulty. While in story telling this seems like cheating, in life, this type of figure might be welcome and heroic. This present the nature of hidden cause; the basis for the entire research of Sir Isaac Newton, and the mathematics of Voltaire... To say nothing of Einstein.
That concept of Aristotelic origin as the prime motor, has served to some extend but fails miserabily on the quantum level which is the real basis of reality.
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) It is also crucial to the understanding of Literature, architecture, sculpture, anatomy, mathematics, chemistry, media and social studies, and judicial civic studies... as it has influenced every factor of our lives sine the point systematic observation of the motion of the sun and the seasons became the means by which we categorize and reference the experiences of our life. TIME, if not our own Psyche, is the greatest evidence of Intelligent Design. The very idea that there exists the possibility for a standardized pattern of Intelligence, the notion of education, is an extension of Intelligent Design.
The fact that an aristotelic concept has influenced our past does not mean it has to be given as truth.
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) It is this "peer interaction" that is the reason kids should be classed, to evolve in their human interactions and reflect on their humanity to resolve their moral fiber.
Sorry but as early as the late XVII century christians already acknowledged that morals / ethics don't need god to exist and an atheist could achieved it all alone. If I recall correctly that was partly voltaire's work.
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) This is also the basis of profound theater and music theory,
At least music theory profound basis is the mathematical relationships between frecuencies, nothin' else but nothing more!
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) Without that element, the Jewish "Mezel Mazloth," the Chinese "Tao Tai Chi", the English Primum Mobile, the South American Pachamam inan, the Hawaiian Kumulipo, the Roman Vniversum Scientia, the Macedodian Agathopathos, the Egyptian Tuat Ma'at, all of which indicate the INTELLIGENT DESIGN, the motive for our understanding of our existence loses all emphasis and passion, which defines the HUMAN element of the body of knowledge we call Science, or Scientia,.. i.e. "Intelligence".
Not at all, what we're or feel is independent of the first motor / god / primun mobile, etc... all you're using is the old aristothelic concepts against modern ones, probably less evident but nearest to the truth than that old concept.
QUOTE(raum @ Oct 17 2006, 11:45 AM) Removing that essence of Wonder makes school a utilitarian training camp to bring forth workers. Congratulations, the reality of national socialism is upon us in the courts, as it odorns them all with an armband of denial of essential tenets that define how humans have come to qualify and quantify their existence since they were motivated to begin keeping records.
What you're using is a logical fault: if a not b then d is truth without giving reasons about why b influences over d -a totally different object-.It might have great wording but you couldn't be more wrong.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
trashtalkr
- Sports Guru
- Posts: 7978
- Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:20 pm
- Contact:
QUOTEOn the contrary, it has been disproved several times, every single point that seemed to be a mayor score -like the failure by reformed darwinian evolution to explain the reapareance of capabilities lost- has been sucesfully adressed by science, nowadays there're no points in favour of "inteligent design".
Actually, you are the one that's wrong. Darwinism has been shown to be fraud based on the "experiments" that they did in labs. They rigged the experiments to fit in situations that didn't actually happen in real life
QUOTESorry but as early as the late XVII century christians already acknowledged that morals / ethics don't need god to exist and an atheist could achieved it all alone. If I recall correctly that was partly voltaire's work.
Actually, the very basis of you arguing right now is based on a Superior Being. A Superior Being is the one that gave you the ability know from right or wrong and make you able to argue. As Boehm calls the "Law of Opposites" and what's found throughout society to be true: You can't have a 'yes' (or good) without having a 'no' or (bad). You wouldn't know the difference between good and bad if there wasn't a Supreme Being. So, your ability to disagree right now is all based on the idea that a Supreme Being gave you the ability to reason
QUOTEWhat you're using is a logical fault: if a not b then d is truth without giving reasons about why b influences over d -a totally different object-.It might have great wording but you couldn't be more wrong.
What logic are you using? That wasn't an argument made by him at all, it was just a statement which is true. School is teaching kids how to work for someone else. School should be about way more than that
Actually, you are the one that's wrong. Darwinism has been shown to be fraud based on the "experiments" that they did in labs. They rigged the experiments to fit in situations that didn't actually happen in real life
QUOTESorry but as early as the late XVII century christians already acknowledged that morals / ethics don't need god to exist and an atheist could achieved it all alone. If I recall correctly that was partly voltaire's work.
Actually, the very basis of you arguing right now is based on a Superior Being. A Superior Being is the one that gave you the ability know from right or wrong and make you able to argue. As Boehm calls the "Law of Opposites" and what's found throughout society to be true: You can't have a 'yes' (or good) without having a 'no' or (bad). You wouldn't know the difference between good and bad if there wasn't a Supreme Being. So, your ability to disagree right now is all based on the idea that a Supreme Being gave you the ability to reason
QUOTEWhat you're using is a logical fault: if a not b then d is truth without giving reasons about why b influences over d -a totally different object-.It might have great wording but you couldn't be more wrong.
What logic are you using? That wasn't an argument made by him at all, it was just a statement which is true. School is teaching kids how to work for someone else. School should be about way more than that
"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?"
Soren Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
"Cogito ergo sum" (thanks for correcting the spelling, sheesh work, time, you know the rest)
by the way, Cogito ergo sum (I spelled it wrong), means Ahih Asher Ahih, and is what Moses heard from the burning bush... its from the Latin Vulgate bible, which figures in in a minute...
QUOTEBy the way, Frances Bacon was a bit earlier than Descartes and developed his scientific method even before descartes started publishing two years after bacon died.
*my indication was that the statement attributed to Descartes predated Descartes, and it is well proven to even exceed Augustine, and is a primal indicator toward understanding the human bias that is essential to regard as our BIAS to the the truths of the universe.*
QUOTEThat concept of Aristotelic origin as the prime motor, has served to some extend but fails miserabily on the quantum level which is the real basis of reality.
the real basis of reality is the basis upon which it is observed to continue to operate. no one can say anything more.
but science does not grow in solid definite steps. to those who observe it, it is no fixed island of knowledge; That is for the fare-well friend, who pops in every few months to make sure water is still being used as a metaphor for electricity.
QUOTEThe fact that an aristotelic concept has influenced our past does not mean it has to be given as truth.
I NEVER said it should be taught as a Philosophy, not a TRUTH. It is a buffer to the mundanity of life that may have some proof to it, measureable or otherwise.
Sorry but as early as the late XVII century christians already acknowledged that morals / ethics don't need god to exist and an atheist could achieved it all alone.
Um, actually Plato did that long before them, and the notion of Tien Ming as developed by Hui Si which predates the unification of the seven kingdoms that would become China predates alphabetic languages... and they both concluded there was a intelligence which adminstrated the design of the universe.
QUOTEIf I recall correctly that was partly voltaire's work.
He had help. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />
QUOTEAt least music theory profound basis is the mathematical relationships between frecuencies, nothin' else but nothing more!
actually, that is the measure of it, but you might find Pythagoras had a bit more to say about the subject than that, as will EVERY CULTURE IN RECORD.
QUOTENot at all, what we're or feel is independent of the first motor / god / primun mobile, etc... all you're using is the old aristothelic concepts against modern ones, probably less evident but nearest to the truth than that old concept.
Not at all. I am using, if you will the notions of Post-Structuralism, as opposed to Post-Modernism.
what is more important "Conveying what Bacon learned" or "Conveying what inspired Bacon"?
QUOTEWhat you're using is a logical fault: if a not b then d is truth without giving reasons about why b influences over d -a totally different object-.It might have great wording but you couldn't be more wrong.
what i'm using is the observation of more than 15 years in the business world and college towns that most people want the grade to get the job, but when it comes down to it, the only reason they want the job is because it is better than a different job. By definition, that is utilitarian. and most people who make it through school have to look elsewhere to find meaning that is the very motive for everything they learn.
and trust me, from video games to football to comic books to action movies, its all focusing on the same power of myth that makes our existence bearable. that is my point why intelligent design must be taught, not so it competes with Religion or Science, but so it stands on its own Merits.
This is something I have witnessed to be true, from Japan to South America, from The Middle East, to the Down South... I am not saying teach ONE AS TRUTH, I am saying show their influence unabashed.
by the way, Cogito ergo sum (I spelled it wrong), means Ahih Asher Ahih, and is what Moses heard from the burning bush... its from the Latin Vulgate bible, which figures in in a minute...
QUOTEBy the way, Frances Bacon was a bit earlier than Descartes and developed his scientific method even before descartes started publishing two years after bacon died.
*my indication was that the statement attributed to Descartes predated Descartes, and it is well proven to even exceed Augustine, and is a primal indicator toward understanding the human bias that is essential to regard as our BIAS to the the truths of the universe.*
QUOTEThat concept of Aristotelic origin as the prime motor, has served to some extend but fails miserabily on the quantum level which is the real basis of reality.
the real basis of reality is the basis upon which it is observed to continue to operate. no one can say anything more.
but science does not grow in solid definite steps. to those who observe it, it is no fixed island of knowledge; That is for the fare-well friend, who pops in every few months to make sure water is still being used as a metaphor for electricity.
QUOTEThe fact that an aristotelic concept has influenced our past does not mean it has to be given as truth.
I NEVER said it should be taught as a Philosophy, not a TRUTH. It is a buffer to the mundanity of life that may have some proof to it, measureable or otherwise.
Sorry but as early as the late XVII century christians already acknowledged that morals / ethics don't need god to exist and an atheist could achieved it all alone.
Um, actually Plato did that long before them, and the notion of Tien Ming as developed by Hui Si which predates the unification of the seven kingdoms that would become China predates alphabetic languages... and they both concluded there was a intelligence which adminstrated the design of the universe.
QUOTEIf I recall correctly that was partly voltaire's work.
He had help. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />
QUOTEAt least music theory profound basis is the mathematical relationships between frecuencies, nothin' else but nothing more!
actually, that is the measure of it, but you might find Pythagoras had a bit more to say about the subject than that, as will EVERY CULTURE IN RECORD.
QUOTENot at all, what we're or feel is independent of the first motor / god / primun mobile, etc... all you're using is the old aristothelic concepts against modern ones, probably less evident but nearest to the truth than that old concept.
Not at all. I am using, if you will the notions of Post-Structuralism, as opposed to Post-Modernism.
what is more important "Conveying what Bacon learned" or "Conveying what inspired Bacon"?
QUOTEWhat you're using is a logical fault: if a not b then d is truth without giving reasons about why b influences over d -a totally different object-.It might have great wording but you couldn't be more wrong.
what i'm using is the observation of more than 15 years in the business world and college towns that most people want the grade to get the job, but when it comes down to it, the only reason they want the job is because it is better than a different job. By definition, that is utilitarian. and most people who make it through school have to look elsewhere to find meaning that is the very motive for everything they learn.
and trust me, from video games to football to comic books to action movies, its all focusing on the same power of myth that makes our existence bearable. that is my point why intelligent design must be taught, not so it competes with Religion or Science, but so it stands on its own Merits.
This is something I have witnessed to be true, from Japan to South America, from The Middle East, to the Down South... I am not saying teach ONE AS TRUTH, I am saying show their influence unabashed.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
windlord
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:53 am
QUOTE(trashtalkr @ Oct 17 2006, 01:53 PM) Actually, you are the one that's wrong. Darwinism has been shown to be fraud based on the "experiments" that they did in labs. They rigged the experiments to fit in situations that didn't actually happen in real life
‚¿which experiments? Actually evolutionism has been tested correct by diferential genetics, fosil registries, etc.. while as of the moment ID has 0 points in it's favour.
QUOTE(trashtalkr @ Oct 17 2006, 01:53 PM) Actually, the very basis of you arguing right now is based on a Superior Being. A Superior Being is the one that gave you the ability know from right or wrong and make you able to argue. As Boehm calls the "Law of Opposites" and what's found throughout society to be true: You can't have a 'yes' (or good) without having a 'no' or (bad). You wouldn't know the difference between good and bad if there wasn't a Supreme Being. So, your ability to disagree right now is all based on the idea that a Supreme Being gave you the ability to reason
What logic are you using? That wasn't an argument made by him at all, it was just a statement which is true. School is teaching kids how to work for someone else. School should be about way more than that
Well I think that Jacob Boehm theory of opposites has a major flaw, it needs the existence of a supreme being to work, but if you follow the history of the "law of opposites" it was later taken up by marxists and reformed in a way that it didn't need the existance of god to work, anyway there're other philosophical constructions of opposites that don't need the existance of god and widely accepted as correct (as Chomsky's) and you're just being partial to the one that justifies your discourse and give to it the range of truth without justification.
‚¿which experiments? Actually evolutionism has been tested correct by diferential genetics, fosil registries, etc.. while as of the moment ID has 0 points in it's favour.
QUOTE(trashtalkr @ Oct 17 2006, 01:53 PM) Actually, the very basis of you arguing right now is based on a Superior Being. A Superior Being is the one that gave you the ability know from right or wrong and make you able to argue. As Boehm calls the "Law of Opposites" and what's found throughout society to be true: You can't have a 'yes' (or good) without having a 'no' or (bad). You wouldn't know the difference between good and bad if there wasn't a Supreme Being. So, your ability to disagree right now is all based on the idea that a Supreme Being gave you the ability to reason
What logic are you using? That wasn't an argument made by him at all, it was just a statement which is true. School is teaching kids how to work for someone else. School should be about way more than that
Well I think that Jacob Boehm theory of opposites has a major flaw, it needs the existence of a supreme being to work, but if you follow the history of the "law of opposites" it was later taken up by marxists and reformed in a way that it didn't need the existance of god to work, anyway there're other philosophical constructions of opposites that don't need the existance of god and widely accepted as correct (as Chomsky's) and you're just being partial to the one that justifies your discourse and give to it the range of truth without justification.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
x3n
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:22 pm
RAUM, it seems to me that the case you're making for Intelligent Design is more a study on mathematics. You even make mention of the fact that we, as a species, record and standardize our perceptions. It seems a logical step to problem solving, we record events, find patterns and describe them as such. Time being a great example, absolutely!. We measure the ethereal, we find the pattern in the cycles of nature. WE find it. Lifespans are broken down into seasons, months, days, hours and so on. Even if we have to resort to adjustments and leap years, some "months" might have less or more "days". We then patch up these measurements, stubbornly with "daylinght savings time" if we must...we will find it. It doesn't mean it's "set up" that way, it means we find a way to standardize and pass down this information. Let's not kid ourselves, experiencing the light and dark and the passing of friends and family, the migration of herds...at some point must have demanded some form of standardized chronology.
Intelligent Design, as most know it and debate it today, requires a designer. It demands of the student a belief in a being behind it. My problem with ID today is that, unlike science, ID is open to several interpretations. 6,000 YO earth, boats housing any and all animals, and a common ancestry of two (one born out of a rib) are all VERY real possibilites as topics. As a philosophy? yeah I think it could very well be brought into the classroom. Is that what we are talking about, or are we arguing for an OPTION to evidence?.
Intelligent Design, as most know it and debate it today, requires a designer. It demands of the student a belief in a being behind it. My problem with ID today is that, unlike science, ID is open to several interpretations. 6,000 YO earth, boats housing any and all animals, and a common ancestry of two (one born out of a rib) are all VERY real possibilites as topics. As a philosophy? yeah I think it could very well be brought into the classroom. Is that what we are talking about, or are we arguing for an OPTION to evidence?.
Dude, of course she's gonna dig it...your mom loves the cock
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
@ windlord
Welcome to AF...Welcome especially, to VU...
QUOTE("windlord")On the contrary, it has been disproved several times
Really..? Where..? How..?
The question I must ask, and the point I must make when this discussion is this...Whether you believe in evolution or not, the bottom line is that you don't get something from nothing...So, whether we were evolved from something and then touched by intelligent design, or designed and then touched by evolution, the idea that one or the other could stand on its own as an explanation of life as we know it is simply ridiculous...
Neither is plausible without faith...
Interesting this topic was brought about today...I read an article in Time magazine that deals with mapping the human genome...We share all bout about 1.23% of our DNA with chimps...In fact, we are closer to chimps, than rats are to mice...
It seemed to suggest that somehow, us and chimps evolved from the same common ancestor...DNA is more or less a series fo switches of sorts, some switched to off, and some to on...But those things mean all the diference in the world, and beyond that, there is what they call 'dark matter' within DNA that has pretty much unknown properties, that even still affects us...
Long a believer in creationism, I think logic allows for both to exist together...
Welcome to AF...Welcome especially, to VU...
QUOTE("windlord")On the contrary, it has been disproved several times
Really..? Where..? How..?
The question I must ask, and the point I must make when this discussion is this...Whether you believe in evolution or not, the bottom line is that you don't get something from nothing...So, whether we were evolved from something and then touched by intelligent design, or designed and then touched by evolution, the idea that one or the other could stand on its own as an explanation of life as we know it is simply ridiculous...
Neither is plausible without faith...
Interesting this topic was brought about today...I read an article in Time magazine that deals with mapping the human genome...We share all bout about 1.23% of our DNA with chimps...In fact, we are closer to chimps, than rats are to mice...
It seemed to suggest that somehow, us and chimps evolved from the same common ancestor...DNA is more or less a series fo switches of sorts, some switched to off, and some to on...But those things mean all the diference in the world, and beyond that, there is what they call 'dark matter' within DNA that has pretty much unknown properties, that even still affects us...
Long a believer in creationism, I think logic allows for both to exist together...
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
windlord
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:53 am
QUOTE(AYHJA @ Oct 18 2006, 02:26 AM) @ windlord
The question I must ask, and the point I must make when this discussion is this...Whether you believe in evolution or not, the bottom line is that you don't get something from nothing...So, whether we were evolved from something and then touched by intelligent design, or designed and then touched by evolution, the idea that one or the other could stand on its own as an explanation of life as we know it is simply ridiculous...
Well that's not necesarily truth, evolution is a clear case of a self organizing process driven by environmental forces of all kinds. Self organizing processes are curious because they actually look like they're driven by some designer, like the way a salt cristalizes in such perfectly and orderly way. The fact is that behind self organization lies the laws of nature, the same happens with evolution.
QUOTE(AYHJA @ Oct 18 2006, 02:26 AM) Interesting this topic was brought about today...I read an article in Time magazine that deals with mapping the human genome...We share all bout about 1.23% of our DNA with chimps...In fact, we are closer to chimps, than rats are to mice...It seemed to suggest that somehow, us and chimps evolved from the same common ancestor...DNA is more or less a series fo switches of sorts, some switched to off, and some to on...But those things mean all the diference in the world, and beyond that, there is what they call 'dark matter' within DNA that has pretty much unknown properties, that even still affects us...
Well that's not the only backup behind evolutionism, but just a part. Evolutionary genetics use not only nucleus dna to test for evolution, but mostly mythocondrial DNA that changes much more slowly than the dna found at the cell nucleus. This DNA changes so slowly that can be tracked easily on it's gradual change from species and species and through the branches that an evolution of a species might have.
Btw, Evolutionism isn't against god/gods/goddess of any kind, it just tells that the intervention they did was just through natural laws of the universe.
The question I must ask, and the point I must make when this discussion is this...Whether you believe in evolution or not, the bottom line is that you don't get something from nothing...So, whether we were evolved from something and then touched by intelligent design, or designed and then touched by evolution, the idea that one or the other could stand on its own as an explanation of life as we know it is simply ridiculous...
Well that's not necesarily truth, evolution is a clear case of a self organizing process driven by environmental forces of all kinds. Self organizing processes are curious because they actually look like they're driven by some designer, like the way a salt cristalizes in such perfectly and orderly way. The fact is that behind self organization lies the laws of nature, the same happens with evolution.
QUOTE(AYHJA @ Oct 18 2006, 02:26 AM) Interesting this topic was brought about today...I read an article in Time magazine that deals with mapping the human genome...We share all bout about 1.23% of our DNA with chimps...In fact, we are closer to chimps, than rats are to mice...It seemed to suggest that somehow, us and chimps evolved from the same common ancestor...DNA is more or less a series fo switches of sorts, some switched to off, and some to on...But those things mean all the diference in the world, and beyond that, there is what they call 'dark matter' within DNA that has pretty much unknown properties, that even still affects us...
Well that's not the only backup behind evolutionism, but just a part. Evolutionary genetics use not only nucleus dna to test for evolution, but mostly mythocondrial DNA that changes much more slowly than the dna found at the cell nucleus. This DNA changes so slowly that can be tracked easily on it's gradual change from species and species and through the branches that an evolution of a species might have.
Btw, Evolutionism isn't against god/gods/goddess of any kind, it just tells that the intervention they did was just through natural laws of the universe.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
QUOTE("windlord")Well that's not necesarily truth, evolution is a clear case of a self organizing process driven by environmental forces of all kinds.
I don't think we'll ever be able to find definitive 'truth' in any of this...Rather than do that, lets just go with what makes sense...Lets use things around us, things that have been observed since history began being recorded, and find an example of where at some point, there was for certain a significant and radical change through evolution and adaptation without the intervention of intelligence...
For example...You can write a simple, simple program that will perform the most complex of calculations...Far beyond that of the human mind...But it still takes a human to push that 'enter' button for it to work...Even if that's the only thing that it does, it still must be done...That makes it no bigger, nor any smaller than the complex math being carried out...
Evolution suggests that if we keep on developing AI, that eventually, AI will cease to become AI, and become something else...The AI will adapt and evolve, and write and perform its own complex calculations...
I'll buy that, and if that happens, sure, that's evolution indeed...But if that's the case, it was still created by a human...
I don't think we'll ever be able to find definitive 'truth' in any of this...Rather than do that, lets just go with what makes sense...Lets use things around us, things that have been observed since history began being recorded, and find an example of where at some point, there was for certain a significant and radical change through evolution and adaptation without the intervention of intelligence...
For example...You can write a simple, simple program that will perform the most complex of calculations...Far beyond that of the human mind...But it still takes a human to push that 'enter' button for it to work...Even if that's the only thing that it does, it still must be done...That makes it no bigger, nor any smaller than the complex math being carried out...
Evolution suggests that if we keep on developing AI, that eventually, AI will cease to become AI, and become something else...The AI will adapt and evolve, and write and perform its own complex calculations...
I'll buy that, and if that happens, sure, that's evolution indeed...But if that's the case, it was still created by a human...
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
windlord
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:53 am
QUOTE(AYHJA @ Oct 18 2006, 06:51 AM) Lets use things around us, things that have been observed since history began being recorded, and find an example of where at some point, there was for certain a significant and radical change through evolution and adaptation without the intervention of intelligence...
On the geological record, you can find several, since evolution is a very slow process and not observable directly except from simulations, on is the evolution from prokaryote cells into eucariote that allowed for the appareance of pluricellular organism, the sudden change in respiration that led to our atmosphere, the cambric explosion of life, the overdevelopment of trilobites that let to it's extinction.
QUOTE(AYHJA @ Oct 18 2006, 06:51 AM) For example...You can write a simple, simple program that will perform the most complex of calculations...Far beyond that of the human mind...But it still takes a human to push that 'enter' button for it to work...Even if that's the only thing that it does, it still must be done...That makes it no bigger, nor any smaller than the complex math being carried out...
You assume that there's need for a prime motor there, something that must start it. Evolution dosn't work that way, a more suitable example is that of radioactivity adaptation on some places, for example there're cities in Iran where the natural level of radiation is enough that most of us will die of cancer eventually, but there's no higher rate of cancer on the natural population, the reason is that environmental force has given a reproductive advantage to those who had mutations that allowed them to withstand better the radiation. That small change is indeed a radical one because they have developed radically new methods to withstand radiation.
QUOTE(AYHJA @ Oct 18 2006, 06:51 AM) Evolution suggests that if we keep on developing AI, that eventually, AI will cease to become AI, and become something else...The AI will adapt and evolve, and write and perform its own complex calculations... I'll buy that, and if that happens, sure, that's evolution indeed...But if that's the case, it was still created by a human...
Well it's difficult to belive the contrary, but life could have evolved to use electricity and nanoscale like circuits, in fact there're proteins that act as transistors and could form electric circuits, but that's secondary. The ia example is bad because you're comparing something that has had a primun motor (human hands) with something that isn't. It's a bad analogy.
On the geological record, you can find several, since evolution is a very slow process and not observable directly except from simulations, on is the evolution from prokaryote cells into eucariote that allowed for the appareance of pluricellular organism, the sudden change in respiration that led to our atmosphere, the cambric explosion of life, the overdevelopment of trilobites that let to it's extinction.
QUOTE(AYHJA @ Oct 18 2006, 06:51 AM) For example...You can write a simple, simple program that will perform the most complex of calculations...Far beyond that of the human mind...But it still takes a human to push that 'enter' button for it to work...Even if that's the only thing that it does, it still must be done...That makes it no bigger, nor any smaller than the complex math being carried out...
You assume that there's need for a prime motor there, something that must start it. Evolution dosn't work that way, a more suitable example is that of radioactivity adaptation on some places, for example there're cities in Iran where the natural level of radiation is enough that most of us will die of cancer eventually, but there's no higher rate of cancer on the natural population, the reason is that environmental force has given a reproductive advantage to those who had mutations that allowed them to withstand better the radiation. That small change is indeed a radical one because they have developed radically new methods to withstand radiation.
QUOTE(AYHJA @ Oct 18 2006, 06:51 AM) Evolution suggests that if we keep on developing AI, that eventually, AI will cease to become AI, and become something else...The AI will adapt and evolve, and write and perform its own complex calculations... I'll buy that, and if that happens, sure, that's evolution indeed...But if that's the case, it was still created by a human...
Well it's difficult to belive the contrary, but life could have evolved to use electricity and nanoscale like circuits, in fact there're proteins that act as transistors and could form electric circuits, but that's secondary. The ia example is bad because you're comparing something that has had a primun motor (human hands) with something that isn't. It's a bad analogy.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |