Even the Vatican doesn't believe in "Intelligent Design

[warsloth]

Among the Oldest and most original copies are in the dead sea scrolls.

[Krusshyk]

I don't mean to stir up the pot here, but technically there are 2 creation stories in the traditional bible. Most people don't seem to catch that.

There's the one about creating everything in the first six days of existence and resting on the 7th. And there's the one with Adam and Eve. Those two stories both have different chronologies for Creation and are regarded by scholars as separate stories.

[xyryn]

Interesting thread.

I knew about the languages of the "first" Bible, but hadn't considered which language the Catholics used altho I knew they use Latin for communication. Also knew that the King James version had some peculiarities due to King James demanding that it be made readable...in the then current approved style for poetic literature. (I can just imagine the translation committee pondering how to do the begats.)

I hope to someday to read the completed new translation with addenda ... which had 72-75 volumes, last I heard. (I'll skip the begats.) I've already read some of the first volume, and the two mentioned creation stories are definitely two separate stories...the writing styles don't even look like they are from the same culture. I'm curious about what got lost in translation the other few times it has been translated. (Remember that Cinderella's slipper was fur in the original French version, not glass.)

[warsloth]

I found a "New King James" version in my last house. I found it to be much more readable without all the extra thouest's. I found king james version wasn't easy to communicate to others who weren't familiar with it. Shakespear is also difficult for readers who aren't dumb or unintelligent, the style is just akward to them. Some folks just get it.

[Jerrel]

Ok I'm a little confused here. I dont know what theory of Intelligent Design they planed on using for the schools but I have read a book that talks about a version of Intelligent Design. Seeing as how I read it a few years ago I'm not sure weather this is the theory or weather it isn't.

In this book an astronomer (sp?) puts forth the idea that an intelligence had to be behind the creation of the universe. He points out that the varriables that lead to the big bang had to be very persice and that if one of these "random" varriables was off by a single desimal point the universe would not have been created. He points out that these random variables may not be random at all but the result of an intelligence unsee to us. This line of thought goes on to discuse the rise of life on earth He points to the numerous experiments that have been done to try to create life out of the elements thought to be in the primordial soup. None of these experiments have sucseeded and that is with an intelligence making sure that all the radom varriables are not random.

Personally I agree with the logic behind it. The more random varriables needed for some thing to occure the less likely it is to happen and the more likely that when it does some thing not random gave it a shove. Anyone who knows the discussion of ID know weather this is what was purposed or not?

[xyryn]

From what I can gather from both reading and listening to those who support Intelligent Design, this is not what they want taught in schools. It contradicts the miraculous creation of the universe in a given time period.

This idea that you read of an intelligence giving a boost to the random factor is a not an unusual thread of thought in the scientific and philosophical communities. It is no more acceptable to the hard core Intelligent Design proponants than is current accepted scientific thought. Both your boosted development model and modified Darwinism allow billions of years for the development of the universe as we know it, and for life to begin. This contradicts the Bible's timeline which appears to set the beginning of everything about 6000 plus years ago.

[Jabe Adaks]

All I know is that I am a subspecies of a humanoid alien race that has treveled the universe with their brilliant technology and who spread their seed on fertile worlds everywhere. Their hope is that one day their children would evolve and join the war against the invading alien races trying to take the promised land, Humanus Prime.

I have foreseen my purpose in this grand vision. I must invent the hyperdrive now, so the humans of my world can join the war centuries sooner than expected. It is my purpose to surpass the ancestor's expectations and change the tide of the war forever.

Jabe

[Isleh]

All I know is that I am a subspecies of a humanoid alien race that has treveled the universe with their brilliant technology and who spread their seed on fertile worlds everywhere. Their hope is that one day their children would evolve and join the war against the invading alien races trying to take the promised land, Humanus Prime.

I have foreseen my purpose in this grand vision. I must invent the hyperdrive now, so the humans of my world can join the war centuries sooner than expected. It is my purpose to surpass the ancestor's expectations and change the tide of the war forever.

Jabe

What medication are you on and can I have some?

[warsloth]

There is a guy out there who came up with a 7000 year timeline, which I believe is being touted as "new earth creationism" There are several different variations and theories of Inteligent design, Creationism, macro and micro evolution... etc.

Really, there are many theories and things they could teach, which begs the question, "why have they picked evolution?"

The real debate I would raise is more centered on why public/government schools have adopted evolution over other theories. They shouldn't be able to present one side, or possible answer, to a highly debated question. At least that's my opinion of the situation.

[X'an Shin]

Really, there are many theories and things they could teach, which begs the question, "why have they picked evolution?"

The real debate I would raise is more centered on why public/government schools have adopted evolution over other theories. They shouldn't be able to present one side, or possible answer, to a highly debated question. At least that's my opinion of the situation.

Probably because Evolution is the only theory/law backed by science. All other theories lack any sort of scientific evidence, and are based around religion, which as we discussed to exhaustion in an earlier thread, is a violation of the First Amendment.

I mean, Jabe's joke theory is based off of an episode of Star Trek. It holds about as much weight as any of the non scientific theories out there. I for one am glad there aren't any other theories being taught in public schools.

[Isleh]

Really, there are many theories and things they could teach, which begs the question, "why have they picked evolution?"

Given: It is proven that genetic manipulation can produce new breeds of animals. e.g. Ligers, any dog, cat, or horse breed you can think of.

Thus it is very reasonable to assume that natural changes in the enviroment and diseases can do the same. e.g. any inheirated genetic diseases such as Sickle Cell Anemia, the bird flu affecting China for the most part, Natural Disasters such as volcanic eruptions killing loclized species, etc..

We see eveloution happening now. What do you think would happen if the bird flu affecting China was left unchecked by human intervention?

- Do you think it is possible that some localized species of birds could go extinct or severly reduce the number of certain species so that they are no longer viable?

- Do you think the bird flu would have a more disastrous effect on species the congregated in large nesting areas as opposed to nesting alone and away from other members of their species?

- Do you think that this may cause regional differances if it happened offen enough with the virus changing too often to build an immunity? Such that bird species in China would elvolve and tend to nest alone while in other parts of the world, other bird species congregated in large nesting groups?

[Isleh]

- Do you think it is possible that some localized species of birds could go extinct or severly reduce the number of certain species so that they are no longer viable?

Such as....

Bird flu puts pressure on vulnerable species

Again, this could be better or worse without human intervention. We simply don't know. In this case human intervention looks like its making it worse, but it is very possible that human intervention may have mitigated others far worse.

With or without human intervention here is evolution, right in front of us staring us in the face and it will happen again, with or without humans on this planet.

[warsloth]

Thats part of the subtheory of Micro evolution. I consider that one to be associated to "natural selection."
Then there is Macro Evolution, which suggests that all species sprang from a single cell organism. (eukaryotic/prokaryotic cells {sorry if SP error})

Macro evolution suffers a conflict since chromosomes differ in number from species to species, or whatever branch of the phylum..order... whatever crap. There would have to be some substantially HUGE mutation for a male and female of a species to make that kind of jump, or rather for a single mutated organism to be able to reproduce with another of a certain kind.

The book "The Rise of Life" is a good artistic/pictoral comparisson of species through the course of evolution from single cell to human... but it only serves as a support to Darwinian theory, and doesn't argue any certain points against other theories or flaws in evolution theory.

Probably because Evolution is the only theory/law backed by science. All other theories lack any sort of scientific evidence, and are based around religion, which as we discussed to exhaustion in an earlier thread, is a violation of the First Amendment.

I mean, Jabe's joke theory is based off of an episode of Star Trek. It holds about as much weight as any of the non scientific theories out there. I for one am glad there aren't any other theories being taught in public schools.

X'an dude, as much as I love you, all that can be argued to death... and most likely has. There is just as much science involved in the other theories, but they still have the "religious" tag attached. The problem some see, is that evolution is not as "unreligious" as it is touted as the primary belief of agnostics and athiests. I don't know much about "scientology" but I guess some claim it as a religion too.

Are you sure that evolution is entirely neutral? Eh, lets try not to beat a dead horse here, I just want to know if you think it is completely neutral ground.

I would rather not go into opinion of what should/shouldn't be taught in school, but I am finding a lot of this thread to be entertaining and educational.

[X'an Shin]

X'an dude, as much as I love you, all that can be argued to death... and most likely has. There is just as much science involved in the other theories, but they still have the "religious" tag attached. The problem some see, is that evolution is not as "unreligious" as it is touted as the primary belief of agnostics and athiests. I don't know much about "scientology" but I guess some claim it as a religion too.

Are you sure that evolution is entirely neutral? Eh, lets try not to beat a dead horse here, I just want to know if you think it is completely neutral ground.

Yes, evolution is entirely neutral. It's not only the primary belief of agnostics and athiests, it's also the primary belief of scientists. They tend to be unbiased. Anyone reading religion into it is kidding themselves.

Also: it's not just a theory anymore. Evolution as fact (scroll down a bit). Sorry to use wikipedia, but this entry's damn thorough.

As for science in the other religious theories, I'd love to hear them. The ones that claim Carbon Dating isn't accurate but somehow come up short-handed when offering empirically measurable alternatives are my favorite. I love a good laugh.

[warsloth]

I'll have to read through that link, but there is still no hard proof that evolution is fact, which is why it remains theory, and not law. Too many folks like to make that jump and just take it as such.