spore vs jesus
- Started
- Last post
- 107 Responses
- ukit0
Religion has always had a problem with science when it has produced claims that contradict religious dogma. Just look at how Galileo was persecuted for suggesting that the Earth rotates around the sun. I don't hear a lot of you challenging that idea, but I bet if you lived in the 17th century you would have been.
The fact is that religion has a deeply emotional pull over people, and it's kind of ridiculous to act like that wouldn't influences your attitudes towards things like the nature of the universe. If you are taught something since childhood, it will probably deeply bias you in some way, right?
- spifflink0
I am thinking teleos was assigned to this message board by some fundamentalist organization or something. it really is the only thing he brings up.
- sounds like you are intolerant and marginalizing.teleos
- sounds like you are a one dimensional person.spifflink
- sounds like you both should just PIITB already.duckofrubber
- spifflink0
at any rate my copy of spore should be arriving any time...
- teleos0
miko: Your post is both arrogant and imperialistic because it assumes that you HAVE the ultimate knowledge to be able to stand back and see and thus inform the unwashed masses. It is also based on emotion, not data. You have also demonstrated that you don't have a clue what the argument is that people like me are bringing to the table. I am not arguing that complexity cannot happen by unguided naturalistic causes. I am arguing that top-down specified information cannot be purchased without a designing intelligence. Big difference. When you combine low probability with high specificity you arrive at a design inference. You do not arrive at this inference with snowflakes or crystals which can be highly complex but have no specificity. In contrast the software we call DNA exhibits high specificity with low probability. Read some information theory.
- erikjonsson0
So a butterflies evolutionary change of its wings to imitate the eyes of a larger predator is not creative change to you? What is a net increase of information to you as a human? We have existed less than 80 000 years on this earth in our current form while the earth has gone on spinning with enough oxygen to support life for more than 4 billion years. And you clung to statements written in a book less than 2000 years ago? If i come of like an ignorant European to yuo i apologize but maybe you should wake up and see this reality of yours as a result of this country of yours witch still has not learned to separate state and religion. Something we did before the Spanish even sat foot on this continent. So put things in perspective and try to adapt a scope that goes beyond what someone in an institution of religious belief told you happened. its quite ignorant and does not suit mankind well =)
- Bravo, almost everything you just wrote is incorrect. Care to give it another shot?teleos
- designbot0
TBO,
can you explain why you think this please:
"You utilize passive and systemic violence to keep things exactly as they were forever"I think that you are assuming that all the violent acts carried out in the name of "God" were by real believers. In the same sense that George Bush is a "Christian" and continues to use violence in the middle east. When it's clear, he used God as his tool to further his agenda that couldn't be farther from God. There are alot of people that claim to be Christians...doesn't make it true though.
- doesn't it still mean those acts are still in the name of religion, even if it is warped by personal goals?spifflink
- More violent acts have been committed in the 20th century under the banner of atheistic materialism.teleos
- wrong, but you know, whatever.spifflink
- I'm talking about passive, objective violence, not subjective violence.TheBlueOne
- Jesus was far more violent than Hitler, speaking in the definition of passive, systemic violence.TheBlueOne
- Nairn0
"I don't believe in God. Prove me wrong."
If Man managed, somehow, to explain every last facet of existence, there'd still be room for the religionists to manoeuvre, so what's the point in arguing with them? You just can't argue against belief, so don't bother trying.
They'll pity is as much as we pity them - sadly, though (regardless of who is right), the religionists will always have God on their side, and God is what the uneducated masses fear most.
- hopefully improved education will marginalize the influence of religion eventually.spifflink
- Nairn loves his comfy caricatures of them dumb "religionists". It helps him make sense of his world.teleos
- at least the anti-intellectual junk science they perpetuate.spifflink
- There is no 'sense' in the world, just like there's no good or evil. There's just man and his ideas, teleos.Nairn
- You primary-coloured, goofy-looking, 4-fingered drone.Nairn
- btw - I'm no less or more arrogant than you are.Nairn
- But I am less wrong.Nairn
- that is an arrogant assertion and naked one. Demonstrate it with data.teleos
- My last notes were supposed to be ironic jokes, you credulous 'toon.Nairn
- warchossy
- designbot0
off to lunch...I'll be back :)
Enjoy yourselves.
- erikjonsson0
what made me comment on creationalism as funny shit is that like what this guy said about evolution being uncreative, is in its own sense really interesting because Christianity as an entity continues to be one of the most self destructive and uncreative group of people ever and will probably die out faster than any other man made culture has.
- mikotondria30
How can my post be "imperialistic" ? What twaddle.
And it is the arrogance of YOUR claims that I am opposing.
I do NOT claim to know the answers to the 'ultimate' questions, I simply attest that using intelligence to solve them, with millions of intelligence people consulting, experimenting, discussing, disproving and quantifying the theories is a far more noble and intellectually honest way of going about it than just hovering around a graphic design forum saying that biological complexity has been designed because your understanding of some of the more obscure theories of biology is that there is more work to do.
Work that requires a lifetime of study and no small amount of brilliance to achieve. Something that you'll agree, both you and I lack, hence our arguing about this at 1 oclock on a Wednesday afternoon on a design board, rather than being in a lab at Harvard poring over the results of our latest attempt to pose and answer these fundamental questions.
I'm NOT claiming I have these answers, but I AM claiming that the scientific process that has brought us the screen on which you read this, and the intellectual honesty of the WHOLE scientific community that is engaged in exploring the world beats, hands down, you just typing the same old nonsense on here every few weeks.- indeed. teleos' claims are EXTREMELY arrogant, egotistical, and homocentric.spifflink
- teleos0
erik: That's what people have been saying for centuries. But it just won't go away. In fact it keeps growing. Look at the statistics. The major world religions keep growing. The problem is that you've bought into an elitist caricature of what a "creationist" is. Probably from some political ideologue. I'm sure you've never study the claims of design proponents or creationists. Your emotional approach makes that clear.
- ukit0
If the best and most well respected science validated "intelligent design" I would take a serious look at it. As mikitondria3 says, it's a bit ridiculous for people with a limited understanding of science to try to assert that some fringe theory, the one that JUST SO HAPPENS to coincide with your religious beliefs, is the correct one.
Again, if this was the 17th century, are you seriously telling me you would contradict the church and say that the Earth rotates around the Sun. Of course not - you would be one of the ones calling for Galileo's head.
- I maintain that the latest evidence does indeed support intelligent causation. Do the research.teleos
- erikjonsson0
my emotional approach is that from being born in a country where Christians dropped under 5% of the population 50 years ago. Where it has been taken away from education and being stopped from influencing society. Witch gives me quite an unbiased scope and id say, a good 3 generations of non-conformist upbringing. Quite different from still living inside of it and yet claiming to see the big picture. Like i started off, its entertaining that things like this actually still exist but saddens me how slowly some areas actually progress.
- Oh, dear G-d - please tell me which country you're from - I want to raise my kids there.Nairn
- Britain was getting there - but we've spent the last 20 years importing religionists from Africa and Eastern Europe..Nairn
- Any of the Scandinavian countries would work.erikjonsson
- i_monk0
Stop talking to Creationists about evolution: They don't get it and have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
Now let's post blasphemous Spore creatures!
- aw yeh ! Go for it !mikotondria3
- hooray! NOW off to lunch...spifflink
- erikjonsson0
i think a good example of creative evolution here are all the penis creatures.
- teleos0
Lets talk about evidence. What do we actually observe scientifically...
1. The cell, the core of life, is a nano-factory with millions of highly complex processes going on simultaneously. Transport shuttles, transcription, backup processes, the list goes on and on. And then there's DNA which is the most sophisticated program we've ever observed. PHD's in engineering and are baffled by the cell's machinery and code.
2. We have a fossil record which demonstrates a series of saltation events. Massive bursts of novel cell and biological novelty in very short periods of time {see the Cambrian Explosion]. Evolutionary timetables cannot account for this. We are also finding ancient aquatic creatures like urchins which have all of the unexpressed informmation for biped appendages: hands, fingers, etc... So what looked "simple" we are now finding is loaded with unexpressed complex information just waiting for it's trigger.
3. The cosmological constants have been fined tuned to support life on our planet. From our position in the galaxy and our perfect distance from the sun to the fine tuned tolerance that gravity is set at. Slightly more and we'd be crushed, slightly less and we'd fly off the planet.
4. Human consciousness and first person perspective. We are hard wired to ponder our existence. And neuroscience cannot reduce the mind to the physical apparatus of the brain. Information and propositions exists regardless of whether the physical brain does. Reductionism won't work here and the honest ones admit it.
These are just a few pieces of OBSERVABLE DATA. Check it out for yourself. And follow it where it leads.
- Your point (1) is filled with psuedo scientific babble...TheBlueOne
- (2) "evolutionary timetables can't account for this"? More babble. read Gould.TheBlueOne
- GOD OF THE GAPS? Seriously? How old are you?i_monk
- (3) That's called the anthropromorphic theory. Seriously look at the scale of the universe and run the odds. We got lucky.TheBlueOne
- (4) Indeed, nueroscience cannot reduce the "mind" to the brain. However, if I scoop out your brain....well...TheBlueOne
- (anthropic theory)Nairn
- not 'theory', principlespifflink
- balls.
:)Nairn - I love the AP - I've been invoking it for so much these days.Nairn
- Nairn0
For the Nth time, teleos/flagellum - to expect that, after a couple of hundred years of contemporary scientific investigation, mankind should somehow have an answer to every question is laughably naive and arrogant.
Believe what you want - but wringing science for its flaws is churlish and pretty dumb and short-sighted.
Whatever - it's all a question of belief - I'll never shake yours - you'll never shake mine. That probably goes for all the people in this thread who find themselves on one side of the divide or the other.
So, in short - shut up, you bore.
