creationism takes one in the balls

Non-Phish General
#48

the national academy of science has taken on the theory/fact problem…

The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. 
 Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong. </blockquote>

that said, intelligent design does not even qualify as a scientific theory. its about as relevant to the persuit of the origins of life as anything else a person could think up… be it a christian god, a flying spagetti monster, or uncle frank’s magic underpants. also, if you want to look into mcnulty’s post above you can check out the Miller Experiment which showed that organic molecules will spontaneously sysnthesize given the proper mix of inorganic molecules (hydrogen, methane, ammonia, water).

[color=red]btw, i’m not trying to drive anyone off with my posts… just trying to challenge ideas. i think this is a great thread.

#49

lets hear it greg!!! i will bother you until you share…

#50

FSM ROOOOLZ.

#51

sounds very very interesting, please elaborate greg!!

#52

yeah greg, stoner theories rock.

#53

HIJACKED

I’m now deeming this the “Greg share that theory thread”

lets keep this going until he makes an ass of himself.

#54

this is the “greg share those theories” thread.

#55

son of bitch! i just got jacked! i’m buying a gun so this doesn’t happen again.

#56

there’s a five day e-waiting period.

#57

…fine. This is gunna be a long story, so keep with me.
This summer was the first and only time I’ve done mushrooms. Whenever you experience a drug you’ve never taken before, you tend to sit there for awhile going “am I really feeling it yet?” The first time I got stoned, my friend Dave used to still live with his parents out in the country. So we snuck out when everyone was in bed out to near the woods and smoked out of a pipe. I wasn’t sure if I was “doing it” right until we had been staring at the trees in the dark for probably 10 minutes straight without saying a word. I kept picturing the tree creatures from LOTR. Anywho, mushrooms was more extreme for me. We ate some and waited 20 minutes and then basically ate the rest of the bag. So finally a half hour after eating some, I started to feel something. Just kind of stoned at first, but over time it became much more psychological. I started to think all kinds of weird thoughts and philosophies–my ex, who I ate them with, is a philosophy major so I was just starting to get into philosophy. After about an hour of listening to music I got up to piss, and as soon as I stood up I just said “woah!” in the most hilarious voice because I was overcome with feelings of connection with the universe and the Earth. After I came back from pissing I was laughing like an idiot with a new philosophy for my ex. “What if…” I began, trying not to sound like some idiot tripping on shrooms, “…what if the universe began when God got up to take a piss and he suddenly realized ‘woah! The fact that I just had a thought about getting up to piss means I exist and the universe was created in that instant!’” I remember at the time thinking it was a brilliant theory–the universe comes into being when god has his/her/its first thought, specifically about having to go piss–but of course once I wasn’t tripping anymore it was just dumb.

#58

greg that is brilliant!

#59

that is perhaps the funniest philosophy that i have ever heard! and it does make some sense. we exist when we are conscious. but i wonder if God created us after pissing, or he created us from his piss???

#60

It’s a cross between Descartes philosophy and Sartre’s mescaline trip of 1935. This is brilliant. I’m not kidding. Do more 'shrooms and give us another report.

#61

The only problem is a majority of the Big Bang theory is to explain how the Universe was created…not really how life on Earth was created. But, like is said above, there’s VERY circumstancial evidence on the “life on Earth” part of it isn’t very well explained or tested and thus can’t really be a theory. There’s really no true except theories on life.

I’m also with whoever said that philosophy is not a science. I’m a very literal person so I don’t have much use for philosophy and motivational speak and all that stuff since I rarely see it apply to everyday life nowadays. But that’s me…I’m sure many folks have attained great help in life from philosophy…I’m just not sure if it’s a science.

And I LOVED Greg’s theory. Fantastic stuff. I also like how he said that he took shrooms and they didn’t work so he took more. I did the exact same thing the first time I tried them…it must have been almost an HOUR after I took them before I felt anything but I kept taking more so once it hit it hit HARD. I was high as a kite and loving every minute of it. All I can remember was laughing alot and making some sort of “Taco Bell MotherFucker” joke that no one found funny but me. Ahhhh, college.

Stevo

#62

Maybe it’s just me but I think that phrase “Taco Bell Motherfucker” is hilarious.

#63

Thats a great phrase. I am laughing out loud.

#64

That was really the whole joke. I think I was talking about what i had for dinner and yelled that.

#65

Greg I think your much closer than your think…

I recently read an article about the ID controversy and if I ever find some time I’ll participate in this thread a little more… peeee-ace…

#66

So lets see what I can come up with here concerning ID… what I’m writing is paraphased or word-for-word from an article. I havn’t read the thread so apologies for any repeat ideas…

Basically anti-evolution in America is a persistent rather than resurgent phenomenon. It ebbs and flows. The reason there is an increase in anti-evolution is due to the recent lobbying power of ID proponents.

ID derives from an English clergyman, William Paley who, in 1802 worte, if you found a watch in a field you would infer that so fine and intricate a mechanism could not have been produced by unplanned, unguided natural forces; it could’ve only been made by an intelligent being. This view-that the complexity of an organism is evidence for the existence of God-prevailed until 1859 when Darwin introduced “Origin of Species”.

Todays proponents of ID are renewing Paleys argument with a new gloss from molecular biology. Darwin himself acknowledged that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” In other words if something could be shown to come into being without a cause or causes then evolution would be bunk… but this is not the case with any perceived phenomena… all things have causes.

IDers claim that living things are full of such examples on a molecular level. For instance blood clotting happens due to ten protiens that have to work in sequence for the process to occur. So you have complex systems that will work only if all the components perform at once. They argue that such a thing could not happen from “successive, slight modifications” hence such complexities are evidence of an intelligent designer- God.

Since ID usually comes down to “God” it is rejected by the science community. IDs claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Scientists also point out that IDs examples of “irreducible complexity” are not. Some organisims, for example, use only six protiens to clot blood- irreducibility reduced. In other cases, single parts of a complex mechanism turn out to have useful functions of their own, which shows it could have been produced by step-by-step evolution.

Still ID has won significant following among the general public. Many with strong beliefs naturally reject evolution, it makes them question their beliefs and feel uncomfortable. ID fits nicely with many of their views, that God has a divine plan etc… In short religious Americans who find evolution distasteful are jumping at the chance to teach an alternative that claims to be science.

In the end ID is likely to damage science teaching. This is due to the unwillingness of state Boards of Education to offend any sort of pressure group, instead they avoid controversial topics altogether. Hence teachings like evolution are not taught well or in full and students suffer from candy-coated fluffy teaching.

#67

greg, i think it was you at that exact moment that realized the world and YOU made everything, including a false past we all remember.