Evolution vs Intelligent Design

In the interests of starting a flamewar, let's have a fun discussion about evolution and intelligent design! :)

Intelligent Design is the only truth!

ITS INTELLIGENT FFS HOW CAN IT BE WRONG

>>78

yes, happy in the pants should be avoided. ignorance is a bliss, but living in a perpetual state of ignorance(therefore bliss) is something i can't condone, even if it makes you happy.
it doesn't make me unhappy not to know, it simply makes me aware that there are some things which i am not aware of how work, or why exist.
Of course i'd be happy if i knew those things, but ignoring the fact that i don't, and saying that it's something i have nothing to do with, because it was made by some divine being, simply gives me some thing i don't have to think about, not that i have to think about it anyways, i can simply admit that i do not know it.
I just don't believe in leaving an area of science to "god" just so i won't have to consider it anymore.
People who for some reason do believe in not thinking about something and just saying "it's god", are all happy about it, well be my guest, just stay the fuck away from science or scientific discussions.

if it brings you in to an existentialistic crisis to be told that there are some you don't know the reason of, then don't just give up and say "it's just god, i don't have to think about anything anymore" consider it and be critical.

>>74
1+1 = 2 by definition of 1 and 2
WE MADE THAT SHIT UP, NOW GO SUCK A HYENA'S SPERMY NUTSACK MOTHERFUCKER

>>83
"I just don't believe in leaving an area of science to "god" just so i won't have to consider it anymore."

I don't either, but nothing prevents us from using "generic divine entity" as a temporary place holder.

Microsoft comes out with an imperfect product because they want something out, but they don't have the time to make it perfect.  After some time, they release patches to fix the security holes.

It's the same idea.  Do with what we can, and the rest becomes "god" until we get a better solution.

>>85
...But there might not be a god! :O

In... other news... I am one fat dude who loves the cock, and my hairy bitch-tits are so huge you could squeeze them and squirt milk out. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

>>85
That's jumping to conclusions, and Micro$oft makes more money by doing what you said they do.

>>85

but the problem is that whenever we put in a "temporary" placeholder in the form of god, some people will not want to give up that placeholder once we find the solution, because god is something very personal to them. Thus we end up with a conflicting science and religion, and if the religion get's the upper hand, the science won't get developed, etc. etc., hello dark ages.

Anyways, >>1, please listen to me. That it's really related to this thread. I went to Yoshinoya a while ago; you know, Yoshinoya? Well anyways there was an insane number of people there, and I couldn't get in. Then, I looked at the banner hanging from the ceiling, and it had "150 yen off" written on it. Oh, the stupidity. Those idiots. You, don't come to Yoshinoya just because it's 150 yen off, fool. It's only 150 yen, 1-5-0 YEN for crying out loud. There're even entire families here. Family of 4, all out for some Yoshinoya, huh? How fucking nice. "Alright, daddy's gonna order the extra-large." God I can't bear to watch. You people, I'll give you 150 yen if you get out of those seats. Yoshinoya should be a bloody place. That tense atmosphere, where two guys on opposite sides of the U-shaped table can start a fight at any time, the stab-or-be-stabbed mentality, that's what's great about this place. Women and children should screw off and stay home. Anyways, I was about to start eating, and then the bastard beside me goes "extra-large, with extra sauce." Who in the world orders extra sauce nowadays, you moron? I want to ask him, "do you REALLY want to eat it with extra sauce?" I want to interrogate him. I want to interrogate him for roughly an hour. Are you sure you don't just want to try saying "extra sauce"? Coming from a Yoshinoya veteran such as myself, the latest trend among us vets is this, extra green onion. That's right, extra green onion. This is the vet's way of eating. Extra green onion means more green onion than sauce. But on the other hand the price is a tad higher. This is the key. And then, it's delicious. This is unbeatable. However, if you order this then there is danger that you'll be marked by the employees from next time on; it's a double-edged sword. I can't recommend it to amateurs. What this all really means, though, is that you, >>1, should just stick with today's special.

>>86
Fine then, replace "god" with "flying sphaghetti monster."  Happy?

>>89
I'm glad you understand why humans are so retarded! :)

>>90
???  I don't even know what yoshinoya is?

....Shema Yisrael, Monotheism is Bunk

>>91
you are stupid because this "flying sphaghetti monster" is not real.

>>93

You're only saying that because it just seems so absurd. What you fail to realize is that the concept of "god" is pretty much just as absurd.

Do what 91 said and apply it to those arguments for the existance of god. Replace every instance of "god" with "flying spaghetti monster" and you'd realize that not many of them could be disproved, even though there's probably no such thing as a flying wad of pasta roaming about.

even though there's probably no such thing as a flying wad of pasta roaming about.

Oh yes there is, and he even touched me with his noodly appendage!!

>>94
that argument is retarded, the word god is very very very very vague. i would agree flying spaghetti monster is as real is thor, jesus and muhammad but to say it applys to god is just stupid

people argue against the concept god by refuting individual assertions as to what that concept is, which is almost always a christian personal god, or otherwise any spiritual god, simply because they associate the word god with the definition they were given when they were little.

>>97
could not have said it better myself

What if the origin of life comes from a specific energy pattern exhibited by carbon, which dictates that the energy/molecules within carbon could behave in a way which would simulate desire to 'live'. By desire to live i mean to seemingly eat, reproduce, and be animated with intention. Similar to the way a negative voltage seemingly 'seeks' out a positive or neutral voltage, with intention.

With intentions to gain energy by eating, and intentions to create more of itself, it would also be seemingly logical for it to possibly have the intention to make itself more complex, hence procreating or modifying itself into more elaborate 'living' tructures.

This is just out of my head give me a feedback on it.

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, "You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air." I whistled for a cab, and when it came near, the license plate said 'Fresh' and there was dice in the mirror. If anything, I could say that this cab was rare, but I thought, "Naw, forget it. Yo, homes, to Bel-Air!" I pulled up to a house about seven or eight and I yelled to the cabbie, "Yo, homes, smell ya later!" Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there, to sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel-Air.

>>96
What separates God from Jesus, etc?  Oh right, nothing.  If you'll actually read the FSM literature/FAQ, you'll see that it fits in perfectly with every definition of "God" - from universal spirit to angry giant guy with a beard killing babies.

>>97
That's because the people trying to refute it are (usually) logical, sane people.  That's how you refute something: disprove a theory's basis or disassociate it with any evidence.  People like you try to protect your childish belief systems by holding them above logical and scientific scrutiny - if we're not allowed to disprove it, it doesn't exist, right?  Wrong.  It's been said, "Extrodinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  We're trying to compromise by showing you the error in your beliefs, but we don't really have to.  The burden is on YOU to prove such an entity/force/whatever exists.


>>99
Interesting, but your, uh... "theory" lacks structure and it's kinda worded in a way that I'm having trouble following it this late at night.  Life happens at a higher order than atoms, though.

I had sex with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he was lots of fun

>>101
As for proving I exist, along with other divinities, fat chance. We're too good at hiding ourselves. Or maybe we're fictional anyhow. I don't care. Just because I supposedly say I exist is not proof I exist. You are right, however, in attempting to prove Our existence or lack thereof. The search for truth is the act of exploration and discovery and speculation and thought. Go ahead and pursue it.

What separates Jesus from god? Well for starters we have no idea what god is/could be, it could just be a piece of energy with no volition, purpose or drive. Or it could simply be an action (see M theory) anyone that trys to identify god is subject to the spaghetti monster argument. But what of the people that only try to defend the concept. You need to drop the idea that god has to be this big flying guy that shoots fire and watches you fap and just take St. Anslems definition “That which nothing greater can be conceived” and relies it does infact apply to reality.

And before you home-schooled sophists try the age old argument of well what is great, we decide what is great. But someone in another thread already addressed that very well and ill quote him.


"They DO NOT EXIST WITHOUT A MIND TO CONTRUCT THEM"

Not true, what is great constructs what you would call a mind to perceive it, what is not great destroys it, but great always comes first. What is great is not man constructed but rather, what is great is mind conceived, the end, we do not decide, we have no choice. We do not construct anything

You say what is great cannot exist without a mind, I say a mind cannot exist without that which is great.  By definition god is reality

>>103
As far as I can tell, you just ranted saying only one thing:

We don't know what "God" is.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that you're defending something... without knowing what it is?  And trying to define "God" as “That which nothing greater can be conceived”?  First off, "great" is subjective, as you said.  Second, by using that "definition" you basically surrender your right to defend the existance of God.  Because "great" is an adjective that has different meaning to everyone, you can never pin down a real answer - bypassing any attempts for argument.  That "definition" is a carefully crafted attempt to foil any arguments against your ridiculous belief system.  You throw this at your enemies while you preach that God is an omnipotent being in Heaven or whatever.

The second half of your post is a series of poorly thought out strawmen.

"what is great constructs what you would call a mind to perceive it"

Basically, "great is subjective", right?  Correct.

"what is not great destroys it, but great always comes first."

What?  Where the fuck did this argument come from?  What are you building this claim on?  I can give plenty of counter examples.

"What is great is not man constructed but rather, what is great is mind conceived"

Again, what?  Are you saying mankind cannot build anything great, only think something is great?  We already established that "great is subjective", remember?

"the end"

The end?  To what?

"we do not decide, we have no choice."

I'm beginning to think you're mildly retarded.  Or drunk.  Your thought process is broken.  Where did this statement come from?  We've already established that "great is subjective".  From that you can interpret that we decide what is "great" to us.

"We do not construct anything"

... Mind explaining this one, too?  The Egyptians constucted the Pyramids, and most people would say those are pretty great.  Or am I missing something?

"You say what is great cannot exist without a mind"

Right, you need a "mind" to make decisions, like deciding how great you think something is.  Okay.

"I say a mind cannot exist without that which is great."

What?  We already established that "great is subjective".  "If p, then q" doesn't always equal "if q, then p".  Where are you getting the argument that the mind needs something that it thinks is great in order to exist?  That leads to a circular argument, which fails at logic.

"By definition god is reality"

No, by your own definition, "That which nothing greater can be conceived”, you've defined God as whatever an individual thinks is greatest, without being able to think of anything greater.  If someone happens to think everything sucks and nothing is great (lol, emo), God does not exist for them.

By your own logic, you've argued that trying to defend God is pointless, as there is no solid definition.  No solid definition means no real proof for it's existance, only mindless bickering over philosophy.

>>104
you missed the ENTIRE point, great is NOT subjective that we have a basis of judgement on such issues. that good and evil can be defined without religion and that great and not great are part of the same issue. the definition given by St. Anslem is correct. all ive done is take the ideas of objective reality and apply it to St. Anslems definition. btw everything including "They DO NOT EXIST WITHOUT A MIND TO CONTRUCT THEM" on down is from another thread not from me. the reply to this statement is what i was addressing with the quote

how do i believed 11th century propoganda?

Seriously, these are the same people who believed (and had "proven") that the earth was round and at the center of the Universe, that the world was a mere couple dozen centuries old, that a single boat can fit and sustain a pair of each of the millions of species populating the world, etc, etc, etc.

Not to mention that Anslem's argument has been broken since HIS time, so why the fuck are you parading it around NOW?  For the last century at least, philosophers have more or less agreed that his argument fails to stand up to logical scrutiny and the only people defending it are Christians without any sort of related education.

>>105
Perhaps you can provide us with an absolute, objective definition of great?

"They DO NOT EXIST WITHOUT A MIND TO CONTRUCT THEM"
Who's they?  If they refers to god(s), then that only proves the point that there is no god(s).

>>107
great is somthing that keeps you alive and/or is responsible for your being alive, you have obviously chosen to live, not die, and thus adopted an objective reality. everything you use to keep youself alive is filled under great. this is why a mind cannot exist without that which is great. we have no choice about what we consider great and not great. only a choice between life and death, AKA: the choice to reject reality or accept it


and ill repeat myself from the last post about that statement which i did no make.

"btw everything including "They DO NOT EXIST WITHOUT A MIND TO CONTRUCT THEM" on down is from another thread not from me"

in another thread someone was defending that great and not great do not exist in reality, only in mans mind. to which someone replyed

"Not true, what is great constructs what you would call a mind to perceive it, what is not great destroys it, but great always comes first. What is great is not man constructed but rather, what is great is mind conceived, the end, we do not decide, we have no choice. We do not construct anything

You say what is great cannot exist without a mind, I say a mind cannot exist without that which is great.  By definition god is reality"


and i thought it applied to this thread also, which is does

>>108
My adopting an objective reality (or not) should be unrealted to whatever entity maintains my existence...  I'm not quite following your argument.  I see no connection to choice.

"great is somthing that keeps you alive and/or is responsible for your being alive"
A fair definition, but unrelated to previous definition of god.  Under this definition, there can be no "greater."  Hence, "That which nothing greater can be conceived" is meaningless.

"btw everything including "They DO NOT EXIST WITHOUT A MIND TO CONTRUCT THEM" on down is from another thread not from me"
True, but I thought you would know what they're talking about before copying and pasting their stuff.

>>108
Your arguments are totally disjointed.  You bring up points with no logical basis and repeatedly contradict yourself.  You have one or more problems, the solutions to which are:

1) Learn some motherfucking English.  Your grammar sucks and your vocabulary seems confused, making your posts damn near impossible to figure out.

2) Stop taking whatever drug you're on and try posting when you're sober.

3) Stay in school, because your posts sound like you're too young for 4chan.

Anyway, see >>106.  Anslem's Argument has been in question since his era by his contemporaries, and since the 1990's has been dismantled to the point where not even diehard theologists will bring it up for fear of being made into a fool.  The argument just doesn't stand up to real logical analysis.  Your strawmen and confusing ass posts won't save it.

"A fair definition, but unrelated to previous definition of god.  Under this definition, there can be no "greater."  Hence, "That which nothing greater can be conceived" is meaningless."

YES! now we are getting somewhere. you asked how can something be great and greater. thats irelivent they are one in the same. if i asked you to identify something thats the most 2'ist thing you can imagin, it would be 2. if reality is "great" then that which nothing greater can be conceived, or the greatist thing you can conceive its just reality itself. nothing is "greater" then reality. nothing exists outside of it: by this definition god is reality


"My adopting an objective reality (or not) should be unrealted to whatever entity maintains my existence"

not so, the life and death choice everyone faces is one and the same with rejecting reality or accepting it. if you are accepting reality by being alive you must accept that some entities will allow you to exist in reality and some will destroy your existance. or in otherwords, some will take the choice away from you by destroying you. if your motive to life is pure you must also accept that which protects your existance is "good", "great" or whatever title you want to use. we did not make a choice about what we will consider "great". such a choice is abserd. what we did was make a choice that reality as a whole is great by not rejecting it

now the tricky part of this is understanding that we are not required, that is, great can exist without us if it need be. BUT that we can ONLY exist with great. we cannot exist in a reality that destorys what we consider great, or, overpowers it. we would simply not be, we would not have the choice. we are simply the validation of a great reality.

in so many words or less: reality decide's its greatness, we have the choice to accept or deny it but if we ever face this choice its validation of greatness itself. when we construct what we consider good or evil, great or not great, does not affect realitys objective greatness. its of no bearing. we are then given a basis for great and not great that exists independent of man. it does not exist because man created the idea, reality is not subjective

>>111
Ok, you redefined god.  That makes sense.  What are you trying to prove then?  I can define god as an eraser.  Erasers exist.  Therefore god exists.

You also proved that reality is not subjective... but that still doesn't demonstrate anything.

"we cannot exist in a reality that destorys what we consider great"
??  Are you trying to say that reality is a sentient being?  Whatever keeps us alive is sentient?  I would imagine that physical reality either allows life to exist, or it doesn't allow life to exist.  I don't think it's something to create or destroy.  If carbon were removed from earth, life would not be possible, but the existance of carbon in this physical reality means that life is possible, even if not at the moment.

ID and evolution are both wrong.

And all of this, sirs, is why some people refuse to discuss religion for the most part...

You cannot argue reason with people who've been told what to think instead of learning how to think for themselves.

>>114
QFT.  This is the reason I HATE arguing with religious people.  I have yet to meet one who doesn't resort to blindly repeating what someone else said, and then making a fool of themselves when they're totally unable to defend it.  It always deteriorates into theists ranting and making arguments that don't follow any sort of logic and the atheists showing that the theists aren't helping their cause, as has happened here.  Atheists breaking down this kid's arguments into strawmen, disjoints, and fallacies.

Some take the bible
For what it's worth
When it says that the meek
Shall inherit the Earth
Well, I heard that some sheik
Has bought New Jersey last week
'N you suckers ain't gettin' nothin'
Is Hare Rama really wrong
If you wander around
With a napkin on
With a bell on a stick
An' your hair is all gone...
(The meek shall inherit nothin')
    

You say yer life's a bum deal
'N yer up against the wall...
Well, people, you ain't even got no
Deal at all
'Cause what they do
In Washington
They just takes care
of NUMBER ONE
An' NUMBER ONE ain't YOU
You ain't even NUMBER TWO
    

Those Jesus Freaks
Well, they're friendly but
The shit they believe
Has got their minds all shut
An' they don't even care
When the church takes a cut
Ain't it bleak when you got so much
nothin'
(So whaddya do)
Eat that pork
Eat that ham
Laugh till ya choke
On Billy Graham
Moses, Aaron 'n Abraham...
They're all a waste of time
'N it's yer ass that's on the line
(IT'S YER ASS THAT'S ON THE LINE)
    

Do what you wanna
Do what you will
Just don't mess up
Your neighbor's thrill
'N when you pay the bill
Kindly leave a little tip
And help the next poor sucker
On his one way trip...
SOME TAKE THE BIBLE...
(Aw gimme half a dozen for the hotel room!)

I saw Jesus graffiti when I was running this morning. I was baffled. I was like, "Jesus graffiti? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Wow, that is pretty stupid." It was almost as stupid as how Britney Spears has that religious tattoo that she's all excited about, but tattoos are one of the big no-nos in her religion. Don't you guys think that's funny?

"You also proved that reality is not subjective... but that still doesn't demonstrate anything."
 
that was the whole point, that st anslem was correct but that his arguments dont actually amount to anything. if you apply objectivity to st anslem this is what you get, thats all i was saying, your the one that asked me to explain the entire foundation of objectivity.

btw if you think this is some kind of religious rant its not. no religion would ever adopt this. no religion would ever, in a million years, adopt an obective reality. i actually dont even understand how you can't agree with this, do you just see the word god and panic and disagree by default? bad memorys of parents forcing church on you?

>>116
rofl - nice poem

>>117
That's interesting, never heard of Jesus graffiti before lol.  What religion is Spears?  Christian?

>>118
I see.  I'm not the one panicking about the word god...

Granted, this is the first time I've seen the word god being defined as physical reality itself, rather than some sentient being that created the physical reality.

>>117
I dunno, but Madonna is Jewish-Christian goyish.