If not then why would an intelligent designer create this huge universe and only populate this tiny little planet that is nothing in comparison to the size of the universe??
The page you were looking for no longer exists
bloc posted on Nov 10, 2007
| views: 313
Do you believe there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?
Comments
-
TinSoldier said on Nov 10, 2007....
Do I believe in intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? I certainly do. In fact, it is almost impossible for me to conceive of such an immense universe where only such a small and insignificant portion of it was populated by intelligent life.
However, at some point, there must have been a first intelligent life. I wonder who they were, or if they are still out there somewhere. Whether they became extinct or evolved into something else.
Of course, I don't think that this blog was really aimed at me though. :D
-
buckrogers said on Nov 10, 2007....
Hey, bloc, do you really believe this life is intelligent? You're giving Soulcasters more credit than they deserve. If there is life somewhere, this planet must be the loading dock for cosmic losers. -
bloc said on Nov 10, 2007....
more like the loading dock for cosmic mediocrity. -
lfbno7 said on Nov 11, 2007....
yes -
quietone said on Nov 11, 2007....
I most certainly do. why on earth would we so bold as to think we are the only ones that exist in this vast universe and beyond? -
silverwhisper said on Nov 11, 2007....
don't mind me, just curious to see what folks have to say.
ed -
Bronx said on Nov 11, 2007....
Ironically, all life is inherently intelligent, it's just a question of degree.
-
sheltercrow said on Nov 11, 2007....
Trick question.
-
lisamay said on Nov 13, 2007....
If not then why would an intelligent designer create this huge universe and only populate this tiny little planet that is nothing in comparison to the size of the universe??whether there is life on other planets, or whether a creator would put life on only one rock ... is completely irrelevant to the question of intelligent design... -
bloc said on Nov 13, 2007....
how so? -
StupidGenius said on Nov 14, 2007....
I know this question was not aimed at my demographic but Im gonna chip in.Beleiving in evolution I would say that if evolution took place here then it is highly probable that it took place elsewhere.SG -
silverwhisper said on Nov 14, 2007....
why is that, SG?
ed -
StupidGenius said on Nov 14, 2007....
Due to the size of the galaxy and taking the Big Bang theory into consideration. It has been shown that the building blocks for life are present simply floating around in the galaxy. So its "Highly Probable" that the sequence of events that took place on earth many billions of years ago has taken place elsewhere.SG -
silverwhisper said on Nov 14, 2007....
i'm sorry SG, i appear to have misread your previous statement such that it said precisely the opposite of your meaning.
ed -
StupidGenius said on Nov 14, 2007....
?? I wrote something wrong or you misread? not sure what you mean, do you want me to clarify my stance?SG -
StupidGenius said on Nov 15, 2007....
Wish I could get the guy who posted the add above and kick his little add placing ass!!!
-
StupidGenius said on Nov 15, 2007....
I just went to the above site, copy and pasted the above message and posted it in his forum about 20 times with the title this website is crap dont use it. ha ha haRevenge is sweet!!!!SG -
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
A film to watch while you read. -
StupidGenius said on Nov 16, 2007....
This guy dosnt have a clue. He clearly is delusional. It would take me a long time to pick apart his argument and write everything down thats wrong with it. If anyone wants me to do that then say and I will.
"Hold your breath for 20mins and see if you are still alive" he used this to demonstrate an existance of god. This guy needs to stop taking what ever medication he is on.
SG
-
StupidGenius said on Nov 16, 2007....
on second thoughts, give me a few hours and I will destroy this point of view totaly. I tried to let it lie but.... noooooo way!!!SG -
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
Why Intelligent Design is WRONG -
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
Why Intelligent Design is WRONG -
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
Is Intelligent Design Creationism In Disguise?
-
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
Is Intelligent Design Creationism in Disguise? - Part 2
-
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
Is Intelligent Design Creationism In Disguise? - Part 3
Is Intelligent Design Creationism In Disguise? - Part 4Is Intelligent Design Creationism In Disguise? - Part 5Is Intelligent Design Creationism In Disguise? - Part 6Is Intelligent Design Creationism In Disguise? - Part 7Is Intelligent Design Creationism In Disguise? - Part 8Is Intelligent Design Creationism In Disguise? - Part 9 -
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
Lecture on Neo-Darwinism
-
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
Social Darwinism explained by Naomi94
-
bloc said on Nov 16, 2007....
@sheltermay I suggest being more selective? Throwing out mountains of information will only make people turn away. It's better to pick the strongest point or two and leave the rest for another time. Otherwise people turn away because we are all busy. -
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
The dark face of Darwinism - 1 of 6The Dark face of Darwinism - 2 of 6The Dark face of Darwinism - 3 of 6The Dark face of Darwinism - 4 of 6The Dark face of Darwinism - 5 of 6The Dark face of Darwinism - 6 of 6 -
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
The question is too big to take a definite point of view. How is the mechanism of the eye to be reconciled with evolutionary natural selection or selective mutation?
Here today we grapple with the questions of God and Man. Did God create man or vice versa? Was there a big bang or a 7 day genesis? We go where no man has gone before… I mean the questions really are too big to answer. I tend toward the agnostic.
-
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
The concept of god could have no existence outside the consciousness of the mind that thought it up. A bird does not know god, a dog does not know god. You can say ah but god made them never the less. But that would be projecting your conscious expression, which is derived just in your conscious mind, onto another object outside of the knowledge of the existence of your mental state of conscious expression. Do you follow me?
You know what you know because you know; they know not of what you know because it is unknowable to them. It is the projection of your knowing, with the conceit that they must know because you know.
Man is always caught in the dilemma of being. His being, and consciousness, is both the truth and the proof of the truth; a most remarkable leap of logic. The conceit of man is thinking that his truth is the truth of all when it is merely just his truth.
-
bloc said on Nov 16, 2007....
"Do you follow me?"
Yes, this is very similar to the classic debate on numbers. Do numbers exist outside of our minds or are they mere figments of our imagination. I tend to believe they exist outside of our minds even though they are abstract and a good basis for this belief is that the same basic concepts of numbers have arisen the same across different cultures and at different times. If they were limited to our minds wouldn't the concepts vary greatly across cultures?Religion on the other hand, i.e. God, does not arise in the same form across cultures. -
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
I mean the collective concept. Outside of mans collective consciousness. I don’t speak of the individual difference or similarity but of a collective. Only man conceives of god and has no proof outside of mans conceit that god exists because man perceives god. A more rigorous proof would be an independent knowledge or understanding outside of mans perception which is impossible of perception and unknowable.
-
StupidGenius said on Nov 16, 2007....
Video 1 (A video to watch while you read)
The guy narrating this video has no knowledge of Atheism, Evolution or Natural Selection. I could pick his points apart but after contemplation, It is simply not worthy of any intelligent response. It raises no questions other than "Did this guy actually go to school?".
Video 2 (Why Intelligent Design is WRONG)
Good documentary, not sure it explains the theories as clearly as possible but never the less, it does explain the theory.
Video 3 (Is Intelligent Design Creationism In Disguise?)
Not going to comment on this persons personal opinion. He raises no questions of note.
Video 4 (Lecture on Neo-Darwinism)
Richard Dawkins, A very smart man and speaks allot of sense on this subject. I am a fan and agree totally with what he says on this subject.
Video 5 (Social Darwinism explained by Naomi94)
Good video and refutes well the claims that the religious make against Darwin. I’m in agreement with what this person states.
Video 6 (all Parts) - The dark face of Darwinism - 1 of 6
The person who made this video should be shot. He is relating Darwin to wars throughout centuries when he should be stating that his topic is social Darwinism and nothing to do with Darwin at all. This video wasted minutes of my life that I will never get back and to that end I would like to stick it up the creators ass sideways if possible.
Shelter crow, A point I want to pick up on that you have made is regarding the eye. The eye is a subject that the religious claim points to intelligent design when in actual fact its evolution over millions of years can be shown.
"Eyes in various animals show adaptation to their requirements. For example, birds of prey have much greater visual acuity than humans and some, like diurnal birds of prey, can see ultraviolet light. The different forms of eye in, for example, vertebrates and molluscs are often cited as examples of parallel evolution. As far as the vertebrate/mollusc eye is concerned, intermediate, functioning stages have existed in nature, which is also an illustration of the many varieties and peculiarities of eye construction. In the monophyletic model, these variations are less illustrative of non-vertebrate types such as the arthropod (compound) eye, but as those eyes are simpler to begin with, there are fewer intermediate stages to find."
The evolution of the eye can be tracked ( not totally I concede ) but this tracking does more to prove that animals were not just born with the eyes they have, instead their species evolved reducing or increasing the degree/shape/effectiveness of their sight.
The point being discussed regarding consciousness also does more to disprove intelligent design because facts/evidence and theory exist in the real world and can be checked and double checked by anyone whereas creationism exists solely in the minds of its brainwashed followers and has no realistic chance of ever being proven.
I accept the viewpoint of an agnostic but if you look at all sides of the argument of which I have experience and knowledge. Evolution, Natural Selection etc are the only logical reasons for our existence.
SG -
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
Sg – I think you have called it well
-
sheltercrow said on Nov 16, 2007....
Sg
On the existence of odd trimmings to the evolutionary structure that man has, I read an interesting book years ago that forwarded the idea that man has had so many modifications over his evolutionary span that there exist biochemical survival mechanisms that have either lost their full utility or have a diminished effectiveness. He traces some of these odd biochemical apparatus to former survival schemes, now unnecessary, in our evolutionary journey.
-
StupidGenius said on Nov 17, 2007....
This is true. I had this conversation in a small part with silver whisper. I was discussing the evolutionary origins of love inc attraction, companionship and reproduction. Clearly love relates back to the concept of the strong survive and the weak perish. Companionship increased your chances of survival, looking after your family increased your chances of survival and reproducing strong offspring pref boys would increase your chances of survival.
On this point of survival, the two main reason religions survived and increased in followers is because it also was a means of survival eg; if you have a large group of people all believing that a "God" will look after them when they die then in a battle the fear of dying is removed so these people fight harder.
SG
-
sheltercrow said on Nov 17, 2007....
A monkey in the wrench
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Punctuated equilibrium (sometimes referred to as punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology, which posits that evolution amongst sexually reproducing species takes place in rapid bursts, separated by long periods in which little change occurs. According to the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis, phenotypic evolution — evolution of the characters coded for by the genome — is localized in rare events of branching speciation (called cladogenesis), and occurs relatively quickly compared to species' full and stable duration on earth.
Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that most evolution occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.
In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this idea. Their paper was built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
-
sheltercrow said on Nov 17, 2007....
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Phyletic gradualism is a macroevolutionary hypothesis rooted in uniformitarianism. The hypothesis states that species continue to adapt to new challenges over the course of their history, gradually becoming new species. Gradualism holds that every individual is the same species as its parents, and that there is no clear line of demarcation between the old species and the new species. It holds that the species is not a fixed type, and that the population, not the individual, evolves. During this process, evolution occurs at a slow but constant rate; for this reason, it is known as "evolution by creeps" (as opposed to punctuated equilibrium, or "evolution by jerks").
Phyletic gradualism has been largely deprecated as the exclusive pattern of evolution by modern evolutionary biologists in favor of the acceptation of occurrence of patterns such as those described on punctuated equilibrium, quantum evolution, and punctuated gradualism.
Authors such as Richard Dawkins argue that such constant-rate gradualism is not present in academic literature, serving only as a straw-man for punctuated equilibrium advocates. He refutes the idea that Charles Darwin himself was a constant-rate gradualist, as suggested by Stephen Jay Gould, for Darwin has explicitly stated that "Many species, once formed, never undergo any further change...; and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."
Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, is the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodological significance is frequently summarized in the statement: "The present is the key to the past."
It was originated by Scottish naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist James Hutton which was refined by John Playfair and popularised by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology of 1830. The term uniformitarianism was coined in 1832 by William Whewell, who also coined the term catastrophism for the preceding idea that the Earth had been created through supernatural means and had then been shaped by a series of catastrophic events caused by forces which no longer prevailed.
Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs.
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale. This understanding is disputed by some biologists, who claim that there may be macroevolutionary processes that cannot be described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics.
Some creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past.
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 17, 2007....
The best way to defend the case that lower life forms evolve, without the apparent interference of a designer, into higher life forms, would be to show us this exact thing going on right now. Show us a lower life form evolving into a higher life form. Show us an amoeba evolving into something higher than an amoeba. Of course this wouldn't prove that some invisible designer didn't set the wheels in motion, but at least it would show that it can be done, that a lower life form can transform into a higher one. I don't think this was ever witnessed, and until it is, I think it is accurate to say that there is no convincing evidence that it is possible. You can't build a case on fossils because fossils could just as well be evidence that a designer used gradual changes in DNA. When you come right down to it, I think it is probably impossible to disprove intelligent design, because whatever you find, it could have been designed to be that way. Similarity from one fossil to another? So what.
So I think people who try to prove that intelligent design is incorrect face an impossible task. You can't prove that. You can't know that. Whatever you see, why couldn't it have been planned that way? I think it is impossible to prove that something was a complete accident, in the sense that it wasn't planned to turn out the way it did. -
sheltercrow said on Nov 17, 2007....
Everything is Pointless is one of the most interesting Web Site Blogs I visit. It has lots of interesting points of view. Check out what they have to say. Their tag section on evolution is too good to pass up.
Below is an interesting post by louie
"All DNA ever needed to do was make perfect copies of itself. Left to its own devices, all that would exist on this planet would be little naked molecules of DNA.
We are NOTHING more than the accumulation of its mistakes, generated randomly and guided by natural selection".Richard Dawkins
Posted by Louie at 10:06 AM 10 comments
Labels: dna, evolution, natural selection, richard dawkins, science
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 18, 2007....
I'm not really that big on Dawkins. Granted, I only saw one of his You Tube programs, and people tell me I apparently didn't see one of his better ones, but the one I saw didn't impress me at all. I know there are lots of people who swear by him, but in the little video I saw, he wasn't supporting his arguments, he was just making them, so all I saw was a bunch of unsupported arguments, delivered as if they were being supported. It made him seem like a big bag of hot air. -
sheltercrow said on Nov 18, 2007....
Recent single origin hypothesis
[…]
When researchers first began studying the mtDNA peoples around the world in 1987 they found that the greatest diversity of lineages was found in Africa. Of the 33 maternal clans of the world, 13 were in Africa. Though Africa had 13% of the world’s population it had 40% of the world's deeper mitochondrial lineages. This indicated that Africa had more time to accumulate mutations than the rest of the world. As a rule of thumb for any species, the region of greatest diversity is very likely the region of origin.
Scientists were then able to construct the genetic relationships between the various mitochondrial haplogroups and build a family tree. One by one they found the African and also all non-African mitochondrial lineages converged on a single root, and this mitochondrial ancestor was named Mitochondrial Eve. They then identified a single African mitochondrial lineage, haplogroup L3e, that was the single root for all the mitochondrial lineages found outside Africa. This evidence indicated that the human family arose as one single genetic line in Africa within the last 200,000 years and not as multiple lineages in separate locations.
Eve was not the only woman alive at the time but only her line of descent remains unbroken today in all humans. Some scientists believe that the human family faced near extinction in the last 100,000 years due to some catastrophic event (see Toba catastrophe theory). The human population may have dwindled to as few as 2,000 people, causing the lineages of other women to die out leaving only that of Eve’s to dominate. This process has been described as the founder effect.
Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca) is the name given by researchers to the woman who is defined as the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all living humans. Passed down from mothers to offspring for over a hundred thousand years, her mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is now found in all living humans: every mtDNA in every living person is derived from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived at different times.
She is believed to have lived about 140,000 years ago in what is now Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania. The time she lived is calculated based on the molecular clock technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift.
Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway, not the unqualified MRCA of all humanity. All living humans can trace their ancestry back to the MRCA via at least one of their parents, but Mitochondrial Eve can only be reached via the maternal line. Therefore, she necessarily lived much longer ago than the MRCA of all humanity.
The existence of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam does not imply the existence of population bottlenecks or a first couple. They each lived within a large human population at a different time. Some of their contemporaries have no living descendants today, and others are ancestors of all people alive today. No contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve or Y-chromosomal Adam is an ancestor of only a subset of people alive today, because both of them lived much longer ago than the identical ancestors point
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
sheltercrow said on Nov 20, 2007....
You know Tin if they exist and are as intelligent as us humans we will never make contact and never know of their existence. The human species has wrecked its ability to leave this solar system never mind contact an extraterrestrial life form. The chances of being capable of contact are contingent on the existence of both at the same time (with the adjustments for the speed of light etc).
How long do you suspect the human species will have the resources to make contact? That answer is contingent upon the length of time the human species has for contact before the inevitable collapse of our resource base occurs.
Do you see where I an going here?
-
TinSoldier said on Nov 20, 2007....
How long do you suspect the human species will have the resources to make contact? That answer is contingent upon the length of time the human species has for contact before the inevitable collapse of our resource base occurs.
Do you see where I an going here?
Actually, I do, and it is a fear that I hold as well.
Unlike you, I don't think that we have reached that point yet. But I still see it looming on the horizon, whether within ten years or fifty or one hundred.
It is imperative that we leave this planet before we are unable to do so.
As for being able to contact other intelligent life -- yeah, that is contingent on whether they exist and whether they are listening and whether they want to contact us. We can but make the attempt, though.
Comment on "a question for intelligent design proponents"
Related Posts:
stopmediabias
posted 3 days ago
| views: 30
|
Kennedy get banned from communion for his stance on abortion...... read entire post
one_wired_kitty
posted 1 day ago
| views: 45
|
It's okay if you disagree ... but when leaving a comment, please dont be a childish douche and resort to namecalling and insults.... read entire post