Unintelligent Redesign

“..someONE implies human origin and that isn't correct....a supreme intelligence would be a THING by definition. Assuming we were truely created in somethings image we are an IMAGE and therefore we differ from the original....(Another debate).

what is known (FACT) is that MAN has unintelligently redesigned (and continues to do so) what was created....granted, most of what he has redesigned was with specific intent, and that intent has mostly been achieved, for GOOD or BAD (Man often redesigns with specific intent to produce something BAD i.e. bio weapons).

why has redesign been unintelligent? two of the reasons:

1. Blatant disregard for consequences...

2. Redesign without an exit strategy...(only a LITTLE tongue in cheek here).

More important than teaching intelligent design is teaching consequences.....how to recognize them and how to develop consensus
for their mitigation. (i.e, how do we mitigate the consequences of global warming that WE created through unintelligent redesign of the climate?).

Yes, I want to discover the truth of how I and my environs were created, but AFTER I find a way to survive the situation I'm in!

Solution: STOP unintelligent redesign...

(When you discover yourself in a hole, QUIT DIGGING!)”

“You bring up interesting points, Supertroll.

What if a long-range scientific program started to breed only the most intelligent chimpanzees together generation after generation? Would we eventually get a species that could challenge humans for supremacy? And would that make us gods?

In fact, what if Supertroll is the result of such an experiment?”

“I eagerly await Bearmagnet's reply.”

“Ok, so what part of my outlook on this angered you?..

I'm neither pro or anti, I simply want to PRIORITIZE...

Stop destroying the planet first, then go back and debate the issue of Devine Creation or Evolution...and which of the theories will be taught in schools...simply put, if there is no ONE left to debate the issue the point is moot.

Life is short, and the available time in classrooms is finite....teach what's important FIRST.......(Public education is the foundation of higher learning).”

“Nope, I'm just the Troll, been met and hiked with, I'm no alias for any other poster here...

Clarification: I'm also not a Sierra Cluber, you don't have to be a Radical to realize there are environmental problems out there, and believe that teaching our children in the public schools that our natural resources are finite and need managing....”

“We can not destroy the planet.

ST - we should teach how to "save the planet" only???????????

tell us how we might make the planet more suited for you.”

“No, not "Only", just a priority above the method of creation...

"Destroying" is a process, not an end state. (THAT would be past tense DESTROYED).

I'm not suggesting changing the planet to suit ME...(Refer to my point..."how to develop CONSENSUS..."”

“We are not destroying the planet.”

“Maybe our first goal in education should be how to form a complete, coherent sentence.”

“Politics and Religion....

Sides chosen, lines drawn, battles fought...

No winners...


No complete sentences here...just opinion expessed as random thought....
last edited: 12/14/04 3:05:41 PM”

“Humans are not destroying the planet?”

“...Yeah they are, will they succeed? Who knows...if a kid hacks at the base of a Redwood with a hatchet, he's destroying it...will he succeed? He will if he hacks long enough.....

Assuming a belief in the bible here...(Don't assume I do or don't) God gave dominion over the earth, and the instruction to "Subdue it"...

God also gave man free will...for good or bad....

...'tis appointed unto man once to die...and after that the judgement.

There may be more to answer for than our personal faults, our collective ones would be judged as well....and those, for some, perhaps prior to individual judgement.”

“I was being sarcastic towards LiRM35. We are not "destroying" the planet.

How arrogent to think we could.

We could maybe turn the current ecosystem into a wasteland but the planet will continue and develop a new one.”

“...Our arrogance was rewarded with the languages we speak, via the Tower of Babel...again when the World was flooded...

I ask, how arrogant to believe we CAN'T?!”

“because we simply can't. The biggest lesson I learned in Ecology was this; The Earth is only "interested" in an equillibrium between Organic & Inorganic material.

The Earth doesn't feel what we are doing, it will survive no matter what.

The renters on Earth may not survive but Earth doesn't care, new tenents will come along sooner or later.”

“I never said we were or weren't destroying the planet, BM. I was just making fun of ST's inability to connect a subject and verb.”

“Bear is right. The earth will continue, and there will be a news species that will adapt to the new circumstances like the new 3 eyed fishes coming out of polluted waters, lol.”

“New species????


Anyone ever been to Arkansas????”

“here's a news species:


last edited: 12/14/04 5:03:02 PM”

“dUMB PEOPLE!”

“CHARLESTON, South Carolina (AP) -- IMAX theaters in several Southern cities have decided not to show a film on volcanoes out of concern that its references to evolution might offend those with fundamental religious beliefs.
[...]
The film, "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," makes a connection between human DNA and microbes inside undersea volcanoes.
[...]
IMAX theaters in Texas, Georgia and the Carolinas have declined to show the film, said Pietro Serapiglia, who handles distribution for Stephen Low, the film's Montreal-based director and producer.

"I find it's only in the South," Serapiglia said.
[...]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/23/volcano.movie.ap/index.html”

“And I'm sure IMAX would likewise decide not to show a feature if it made references linking intelligent design to nature just the same, so as to not offend evolutionists.”

“I happen to believe that bacteria like organisms were used as building blocks for modern cells.

Mitochondria are double-membrane enclosed organelles of
cells that are involved with several important biochemical
pathways, including electron transport and oxidative
metabolism. Various types of eukaryotic cells (i.e., cells
containing membrane-bound organelles) may contain from a few to
several thousand mitochondria in each cell type. The mitochondria
are relatively large cylindrical structures up to 10 microns long
and up to 2 microns in diameter (looks just like a bacterium to me), and they are believed to have
originated as organisms that became symbiotic with eukaryotic
cells. The mitochondria is either an engulfed prokaryotic cell that was incorperated or created by prokaryotic genes that were incorporated into the cell by a vector.”

“yea what he said (OPIE)”

“Some people (states) just can't face the facts.”

“Some people (states) just can't face the facts

I agree, I mean, what's up with all this junk science evolution crap?”

“intelligent design does not disagree with evolution. its only differing principle from natural selection is that it is consciously guided rather than random. it is unlikely to be proven in our lifetime, and is therefore left in the realm of philosophy and religion. that doesnt make it not true, but its certainly not conclusively true either. its something for those who believe in god who think that 6 days to create the universe and everything in it is awfully sloppy work. in other words god created man and the universe, using evolution and the big bang.
last edited: 3/25/05 5:46:28 AM”

“In spite of what the masses have been lead to believe, the various creation accounts in the Bible are very consistent with scientific discoveries and an 'ancient creation'.

I will agree that evolution has occurred but also special creation at certain points.

I think there is no way that the earliest life forms arose from non-life by purely naturalistic means.

For reading on these matters, try 'reasons.org'.
last edited: 3/25/05 7:45:54 AM”

“Consistent a literal interpretation of the Bible?:

I'm especially impressed with how Kangaroos from Noah's ark (and/or their descendants) managed to hop all the way to Australia without leaving any traces could be found anywhere outside Australia.”

“Hey, ped !!

We will finally be able to prove "intelligent design" when we can finally communicate with Elvis.

I can't wait!!”

“Sunday Post had a great article on why "ID" "debate" is in quotes for a reason.

If anyone needed yet another angle.”

“I thought we all evolved from the Martians that had to skip out on their own planet cause it was like red or something.

You know, that movie, Mission to Mars.”

“i guarantee you not a single one of us here is qualified to discuss how we got here. so, given the choice between trusting a book written thousands of years ago when we knew jack diddly about anything (flat earth? sure), and the scores of highly educated, highly intelligent men and women who have put their lives into the research and equations, ill trust them over fairy stories. if you believe genesis is the word of god, fine, doesnt mean you have to take it literally. just like when we tell our children about santa claus, its true, if not literally true. one of my favorite metaphors is how adam was created from the dust of the earth. when you think about it, that doesnt disagree with the creation account. initially, there was just a big ball of rock with no life, eventually from the primordial muck there was simple life, and billions of steps later here we are, jibbering primates scratching our balls as we sit and type.

fact: we share 97 percent of our dna with chimpanzees. we have a common ancestor, but we did not evolve from monkeys. but creationists like to exploit the revulsion generated from the seeming absurdity of man from monkey. cuz they always say "so you think man came from monkeys?" and then look at you like you just said the moon was made from cheese.”

“Crash Bang, you'll have to leave now. There is NO ROOM for rational thought here on TT. Just what the @^$@&^ are you up to, anyway?”

“ummm dragging the creationists kicking and screaming into the 21st century?”

“another thing that bothers me: if creationists have such a deep faith, why do they feel the need to provide proof?

if you have faith, proof is irrelevant, and vice-versa.”

“Just a random thought. The bible was written down many years after the events happened. The stories wore told by word of mouth from tribal leader to tribal leader for many years before the invention of writing.

Has anyone ever played the game of telephone?
Where one person whispers a message into another's ear and then passes that message to the next person and so on down the line. The message at the end of the line is never the same as the start, but its fun game.

So all I am saying is whatever ancient stories you believe trust the message not he absolute facts.”

“exactly. theres deep truth and meaning in the bible.

theres also alot of archaic advice about the treatment of food in the bible. do we take that literally? theres stuff about slaves. and these are things i know as a casual observer. i know theres other archaic stuff, especially the old testament, that no one, including fundamentalists, dont take literally”

“Actually I dig the slew of scientific "proof" that we are the result of evolution. As a man of faith I have firm beliefs as to why we are all here. If any of my beliefs were to be backed up with scientific "facts" then my faith would no longer be necessary, thus defeating the purpose of faith based religion itself. No thanks, I'll keep my scriptures and you can keep your scientists. Its a bad debate with no hope of a victor.”

“why is "proof" in "quotation marks"? do you "doubt" what they "say"? do you think it is some sort of "conspiracy" to get you to quit believing in "god"?”

“Ohhh yeah! This thread rocks!”

“True! It's really evolving it to something interesting isn't it?”

“For those who are under the impression that no ancient peoples knew the world was a sphere:

check out:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~jalison/index.html”

“I put "proof" in quotes like that because some disceplines of science regularly disproves itself. Facts are facts, unless we're talking about some sciences, then facts are maybe facts.”

“Facts are not facts, they are currently held conclusions based upon the axioms assumed and evidence available and will change with new evidence and revised axioms.
last edited: 3/26/05 6:42:30 PM”

“ahhhhh c bat and i man are using the old "well, we cant really know anything, now can we?" argument to discredit the scientific method.

yes, science is ever-changing. it is in liquid state. it is a means of gathering knowledge. thousands of years ago, we made sht up. but then we started making observations and calculations and discounted the stuff that was made up. we are getting further and further away from creationist thought. the problem with creation "science" is that it starts with the conclusion then looks for facts to fit. creationists are scared to consider anything else for fear of offending god. but i believe the quest for more complete knowledge gets us closer to god. i wish some people would quit holding us back.”

“Hell Crash, I'm still making shlt up.”

“The way science works is that someone starts out with a WAG (Wild ASS Guess) and throws out a theory. He gathers more and more information to strengthen that theory. As information is gathered the WAG is either disproved or made more accurate. It is sometimes hard to kill a theory but if supporting evidence cannot be found eventually they die. It is a must for objectors to try and disprove theory. That makes the theorist gather more and more evidence to prove his own, thus knowledge increases. Even if the theory in the end is junk the knowledge learned along the way is still useful.”

“"The way science works is that someone starts out with a WAG (Wild ASS Guess)"

more like an estimate based on observed events, but yea.

for those who dont believe in science, you dont believe in your cars, or medicine, or agriculture, or your computer, or stereo, or the hundreds of other technological marvels you use in every day life. god just said "let there be vacuum cleaners and goretex and wicking shirts" and lo, it was so, and he saw that it was good.”

“yea, yea, i know, you believe in science except when it conflicts with scripture. well, sorry, thats not the way it works. youre either with us or against us. aint no half-steppin”