Religion 'Intelligent design' teaching ban in the US

[Pachipro]

Papachiro believes that Aliens influence our genesis...correct?

You are quite correct as the bible says so. Elohim and Nephilim is plural and the bible quotes them as saying, "Let US make man in OUR image." Elohim, I think, means "those that descended from the heavens or sky." Therefore the bible cannot possibly be referring to a singular god. However, after "they" created us, we looked at them as God(s) because of their superior technology and the fact that THEY created us.

Some may ask well where are they today? I say their descendents are still among us and rule us. However, that is for another thread.

If you don't believe in proven scientific facts you are wrong, it's as simpe as that.

What may be a "proven scientific fact" today may well be proven wrong tomorrow as has often happened in the past right up to the present. One should respect and look at alternate views if there is "evidence" or contrary views to present thinking and beliefs. After all the old adage of, "where there is smoke, there is fire" is still true today. If someone quotes some literature or myth or legend with a logical theory, another should look at it with an open mind as only solid, irrefutable proof, will make one or the other theory stand the test of time even if it it is held as "fact" today.

And to correct what was stated earlier Gravity is not a theory, it is indeed a law. All I'm saying is try not to think so deep into everything and over analyze ever single detail. There is so much extreme belief in the most absurd information, for evolution to be correct. And when talking about evolution I mean the evolution of man from primate. I'm going to end my post with this and if you want to talk anymore about it send me a message.

Welcome Jcandres. I have heard and read of "the law of gravity" and it is said to be a "law". Yes, there is much belief in "absurd information", as you put it, that is often proved otherwise later on. Your input is just as important as anyone else's. Do not be put off that others will cling to their beliefs to their death based on what is presently believed as "fact". I hope you will continue to post what you believe as, unless there is irrefutable evidence, no one is really wrong even though others may say they are. For example, scientists say that the asteriod belt between Mars and Jupiter is just that, a belt of rocks that failed to coalesce(sp) into a planet. It is just a theory with no evidence to back it up. But many believe it as fact. Research will show you that another school of thought is that it is the remenents of an exploded planet. Further, science believes as fact today that comets are just dirty snowballs. However, further research into other theories will show that they may be the remenents of that exploded planet and that the vapor trails given off by them as they approach the sun is actually the water of that planet being melted away. But since most believe what science says in that they are just dirty snowballs it is taken as fact by the majority, and they will tell you that you are ignorant of the "facts" if you do not believe them. But neither is right or wrong as it is not proven yet. The same holds true with Creationism vs. Intelligent design/Intervention - no one can prove it either way.

 

[No-name]

Pachipro- I guess God in the strictest sense is alien to our planet.

 

[GoldCoinLover]

Wow pachipro, I totally agree with you. i've been trying to rely my point (I'm 17) and I thought I had a valid and intelligent converstaion for someone my age. When I tlaked about it on the physics forums, they harassed me and said I belonged to a 'remedial school' at best.

 

[PRIZMATIC]

:angel: With the come New year of you "wolves" of boundless open spaces of the Internet "ransacking" knowledge! :blush: One surprises me, what will change if you find out precisely - who has created us - the God or Evolution from "monkeys"?... For you it becomes easier in comprehension from what you the same will stay is?... And what for you to know " a craft Divine "?... Unless the knowledge of it will make you Gods?... It seems to me all these disputes from " powerlessness before definiteness " and " desires to find sense of the existence "... In one ancient text it has been written: " In the stepped darkness we shall hear only wolfs of tired souls "... "By" Belief " everyone and the award will be "...:blush:

 

[GoldCoinLover]

:angel: With the come New year of you "wolves" of boundless open spaces of the Internet "ransacking" knowledge! :blush: One surprises me, what will change if you find out precisely - who has created us - the God or Evolution from "monkeys"?... For you it becomes easier in comprehension from what you the same will stay is?... And what for you to know " a craft Divine "?... Unless the knowledge of it will make you Gods?... It seems to me all these disputes from " powerlessness before definiteness " and " desires to find sense of the existence "... In one ancient text it has been written: " In the stepped darkness we shall hear only wolfs of tired souls "... "By" Belief " everyone and the award will be "...:blush:

sorry, i dont really understand your opinion on the subject...:relief:

 

[bossel]

"science" is more often than not, proved wrong with future research.

Depends on what you call science. Obviously your idea of science differs somewhat from mine. Eg.:

Remember, it was once held as a fact of science and medicine that one should not wash ones hands before surgery a mere hundred years ago or so.

Beside the fact that it was a bit more than 100 years, those people who suggested not to wash their hands for hygienic reasons could hardly be called scientists.

It was long believed in Europe that taking a bath was unhealthy and could lead to sickness and even death.

Long? I think, that was only during the renaissance. In the Middle Ages people (who could afford it) actually liked bathing.

But in the Far East it was held as fact that it was healthy and needed on a daily basis. Both sides argued with each other and said the other was wrong, but it was later proved to be fact that it was healthy.

I doubt that a bath on a daily basis is needed for personal hygiene & health.

What may be a "proven scientific fact" today may well be proven wrong tomorrow as has often happened in the past right up to the present.

Proven is proven. The problem is that people (usually influenced by mass media) take that proof & apply it on a greater scale than what science meant it to be.

I have heard and read of "the law of gravity" and it is said to be a "law".

A law of nature (physical law), to be precise, not to be confused with some kind of legal code or religious law.

Further, science believes as fact today that comets are just dirty snowballs. However, further research into other theories will show that they may be the remenents of that exploded planet and that the vapor trails given off by them as they approach the sun is actually the water of that planet being melted away

Does the one exclude the other?
Anyway, as recent discoveries show, comets are dirty snowballs (or perhaps snowy dirtballs). Whether they come from an exploded planet is unknown, but improbable.

 

[PRIZMATIC]

:blush: My opinion recognizes that "Darvinism", a part materialistic (fragment of "atheism theory")world outlook , of the Universe excluding a role in process (God), fruitfully enough "kills" in us aspiration to self-knowledge, "directing" our aspirations - "take one's bearings" by means of "external world" . We become "slaves" to our corporal image...
(if you have noticed from what country I'm ...please believe me - I in practice "saw", how similar "folly potion" operates...) Ideal "weapon" from party " Darkness " (I meaningly avoid the accepted word in similar a case -... " The one who oppose the God...) But "the naive" Belief developed in Christianity by present time("seven days of God" like real days etc) - the same product of "Darkness"(it is my opinion)... So from what to choose?...:angel:

 

[GoldCoinLover]

:blush: My opinion recognizes that "Darvinism", a part materialistic (fragment of "atheism theory")world outlook , of the Universe excluding a role in process (God), fruitfully enough "kills" in us aspiration to self-knowledge, "directing" our aspirations - "take one's bearings" by means of "external world" . We become "slaves" to our corporal image...
(if you have noticed from what country I'm ...please believe me - I in practice "saw", how similar "folly potion" operates...) Ideal "weapon" from party " Darkness " (I meaningly avoid the accepted word in similar a case -... " The one who oppose the God...) But "the naive" Belief developed in Christianity by present time("seven days of God" like real days etc) - the same product of "Darkness"(it is my opinion)... So from what to choose?...:angel:

what? can you pleaes speak in english?

 

[No-name]

It seems to be some kind of criticism of atheistic strict Darwinisnm...but I'm just guessing. I'm also guessing that it is something that I should be teaching in my 9th grade science classes either.

 

[PRIZMATIC]

:blush: I am sorry, " to speak in English " and " to think English constructions of mentality " not one and too, especially for me. (I and for Russian in Russian speak "not clear"...)
For me "Darwinism" - the theory looking for answers in an environment of the person and his activity, recognizing for the person (or for animals) a determining role of development through his Actions... And a role of "Universe" (God) denying thus... Thus " System development of the Universe " is denied, and a certain set of actions and accidents of leaders to occurrence of this or that kind of evolution is defined... - " chaotic construction of accidents and laws "... And through it the justification - to such displays of development of human community - (for example) totalitarian system of government "is easily introduced" also( )... Or acceptance by a society of those or other decisions on this or that question - (for example) McCarthyism( )..., etc.
Initially, the religion, introduced during a life of people "System"... System determining not only human life, but also a place of the person in the Universe... And in many respects " That has been incorporated " in "Religion" - for people appeared not subject to understanding... From here also has appeared the "naive" relation to religious values... Many religious texts are a dialogue with the future generations of people... So from what to choose training?... In it the problem also will consist - to teach - but to teach is nothing( )... But to teach - it is necessary...:note:

 

[PRIZMATIC]

P.S. As that the teacher the Zen has told: People are absorbed by search of "true", but are not able to see that, " that before their eyes "...
It can be attributed and to a question on Darwinism and " Naive religion "...
Why people perceive " seven days of creation of the God ", how days of rotation of our Earth about the axis?... Why they do not suppose an idea that rotation of the Universe or the Space around " of himself( ) the axis " - too "Day"...
Why people understanding similarity of genetic models of " forms of lives " on the Earth do not think that it only consequence of " terrestrial conditions of stay ", instead of " evolutionary transitions of forms "...
...
I hope, what "this" will be of the "lines" of answers?...:angel:

 

[saigosan]

kashii: Intelligent design.....:lol: What a bloodie joke....ID is just a way religious fanatics try to validate their dead beliefs....They slap a new face on it, stick a feather up it's Ar$# , spray some funky smelling B.S. on it, and brand it a new cool name and whammo bammo pass the cool aide and *POP* it's got new brain washed fanatics......... Intelligent design....the new and improved way to try to prove JEEEEEEEEsUS was not the son of a centurian..
:lol:

Pass the love and hold back those stone......:wave:

 

[No-name]

Kinda' what the courts said, too, saigosan, but not as articulately.

 

[Pachipro]

Please enlighten me if there is something in the Sumerian tablets that I missed.

The Sumerian tablets, from which the Bible is written, with many inaccuracies, changes and falsehoods I may add, is not mythology as we are led to believe. But further discussion of this is for another thread.

Let's further read from the man himself, Mr. Darwin to stay on topic:

The following fact, for which I am also indebted to Prof. Turner, shews how closely the os coccyx (in man) corresponds with the true tail in the lower animals: Luschka has recently discovered at the extremity of the coccygeal bones a very peculiar convoluted body, which is continuous with the middle sacral artery; and this discovery led Krause and Meyer to examine the tail of a monkey (Maeacus), and of a cat, in both of which they found a similarly convoluted body, though not at the extremity.

Thus we can understand how it has come to pass that man and all other vertebrate animals have been constructed on the same general model, why they pass through the same early stages of development, and why they retain certain rudiments in common. Consequently we ought frankly to admit their community of descent: to take any other view, is to admit that our own structure, and that of all the animals around us, is a mere snare laid to entrap our judgment. This conclusion is greatly strengthened, if we look to the members of the whole animal series, and consider the evidence derived from their affinities or classification, their geographical distribution and geological succession. It is only our natural prejudice, and that arrogance which made our forefathers declare that they were descended from demigods, which leads us to demur to this conclusion. But the time will before long come, when it will be thought wonderful that naturalists, who were well acquainted with the comparative structure and development of man, and other mammals, should have believed that each was the work of a separate act of creation. (emphasis mine)

Is Mr. Darwin here not stating that he believes that we are descended from primates by saying that the time will soon come that naturalists, like himself, should believe that man was created or am I not following his thought pattern here?

 

[Pachipro]

Further quoting Mr. Darwin on Natural Selection:

Natural Selection.- We have now seen that man is variable in body and mind; and that the variations are induced, either directly or indirectly, by the same general causes, and obey the same general laws, as with the lower animals. Man has spread widely over the face of the earth, and must have been exposed, during his incessant migration,* to the most diversified conditions. The inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego, the Cape of Good Hope, and Tasmania in the one hemisphere, and of the arctic regions in the other, must have passed through many climates, and changed their habits many times, before they reached their present homes.*(2) The early progenitors of man must also have tended, like all other animals, to have increased beyond their means of subsistence; they must, therefore, occasionally have been exposed to a struggle for existence, and consequently to the rigid law of natural selection. Beneficial variations of all kinds will thus, either occasionally or habitually, have been preserved and injurious ones eliminated. I do not refer to strongly-marked deviations of structure, which occur only at long intervals of time, but to mere individual differences. We know, for instance, that the muscles of our hands and feet, which determine our powers of movement, are liable, like those of the lower animals,*(3) to incessant variability. If then the progenitors of man inhabiting any district, especially one undergoing some change in its conditions, were divided into two equal bodies, the one half which included all the individuals best adapted by their powers of movement for gaining subsistence, or for defending themselves, would on an average survive in greater numbers, and procreate more offspring than the other and less well endowed half.

Turning now to the nearest allies of men, and therefore to the best representatives of our early progenitors, we find that the hands of the Quadrumana are constructed on the same general pattern as our own, but are far less perfectly adapted for diversified uses.

As soon as some ancient member in the great series of the primates came to be less arboreal, owing to a change in its manner of procuring subsistence, or to some change in the surrounding conditions, its habitual manner of progression would have been modified: and thus it would have been rendered more strictly quadrupedal or bipedal.

If it be an advantage to man to stand firmly on his feet and to have his hands and arms free, of which, from his pre-eminent success in the battle of life, there can be no doubt, then I can see no reason why it should not have been advantageous to the progenitors of man to have become more and more erect or bipedal. They would thus have been better able to defend themselves with stones or clubs, to attack their prey, or otherwise to obtain food. The best built individuals would in the long run have succeeded best, and have survived in larger numbers. If the gorilla and a few allied forms had become extinct, it might have been argued, with great force and apparent truth, that an animal could not have been gradually converted from a quadruped into a biped, as all the individuals in an intermediate condition would have been miserably ill-fitted for progression.

As the progenitors of man became more and more erect, with their hands and arms more and more modified for prehension and other purposes, with their feet and legs at the same time transformed for firm support and progression, endless other changes of structure would have become necessary.

A tail, though not externally visible, is really present in man and the anthropomorphous apes, and is constructed on exactly the same pattern in both. In the terminal portion the vertabrae, constituting the os coccyx, are quite rudimentary, being much reduced in size and number. In the basal portion, the vertebrae are likewise few, are united firmly together, and are arrested in development; but they have been rendered much broader and flatter than the corresponding vertebrae in the tails of other animals: they constitute what Broca calls the accessory sacral vertebrae. These are of functional importance by supporting certain internal parts and in other ways; and their modification is directly connected with the erect or semi-erect attitude of man and the anthropomorphous apes. This conclusion is the more trustworthy, as Broca formerly held a different view, which he has now abandoned. The modification, therefore, of the basal caudal vertebrae in man and the higher apes may have been effected, directly or indirectly, through natural selection.
I have now endeavoured to shew that some of the most distinctive characters of man have in all probability been acquired, either directly, or more commonly indirectly, through natural selection.

Is Darwin not saying here that we are directly descended from the primates through natural selection, or am I misinterpreting something?

 

[PRIZMATIC]

P.S.2 The Planet "Earth" has "code" - "matrix" - properties of this "matrix" define a structure of forms and conditions of occurrence of new forms... :note: "Evolution" - is another...

 

[Gaijin 06]

Further quoting Mr. Darwin on Natural Selection:


Is Darwin not saying here that we are directly descended from the primates through natural selection, or am I misinterpreting something?

Darwin is saying that man and primates share a common ancestor.

 

[bossel]

The Sumerian tablets, from which the Bible is written,

The Bible has many sources, not only Sumerian mythology.

Is Mr. Darwin here not stating that he believes that we are descended from primates by saying that the time will soon come that naturalists, like himself, should believe that man was created or am I not following his thought pattern here?

I think, you misunderstand him here. For what I understand, he said that (in the future) it would be found astonishing that naturalists of the time believed in creation.

Is Darwin not saying here that we are directly descended from the primates through natural selection, or am I misinterpreting something?

Descended from primates does not mean descended from now existing primates (IE chimps et al.).

 

[GoldCoinLover]

Darwin is saying that man and primates share a common ancestor.

Rats share most of our genes as well..as well as mice

It's hilarious alot of people here are 100 percent sure evolution is the right theory, when we don't understand it all that well yet.

It's only been around what, 100 years?

 

[kumo]

Rats share most of our genes as well..as well as mice

Which again goes to show that all species shares the same common ancestor.

It's hilarious alot of people here are 100 percent sure evolution is the right theory, when we don't understand it all that well yet.

Could you please stop making completely baseless assertions and tell us exactly what you think is wrong with evolution? What is it exactly we don't understand, and how does that invalidates evolution?

It's only been around what, 100 years?

So...?