neitzschefan That’s fine but did the Smithsonian also hide the historical evidence of how “nothing” managed to create all the matter and heat in the universe, the gravitational forces that hold it all together and how life came into existence.
Spidergoat If the scientific community deny the existence of an Intelligent Designer then they are saying the universe came into existence from nothing. If it was not NOTHING then who or what was it?
The design might be inherent in the process of universe creation....so there IS an intelligent designer but they don't exist.
I should point out that you are suggesting the Intelligent Designer came into existence from nothing. The scientific view is that it is nearly impossible to determine the state of the universe before the Big Bang. That could change. Your misconception about Evolution seems to arise from the fact that Creationism seeks to explain all of existence, while the Theory of Evolution only explains the origin of species from the first life.
Tell me spidergoat. Are you suggesting here I am a Creationist? By Creationist do you mean those bozoes who put George Bush in the White House. It seems you can not argue the case logically so you paint me as a Creationist? Very common theme that one. Any one who wants to go over the nearly three years, 31 pages and 600 posts to this thread will find that, invariably, when my critics run out of answers I get called a Creationist.
This is by far the most intelligent criticism of God Gametes to date. Please zenbabelfish can you go to www.lulu.com/godgametes and read some more about my theory on what might be our meaning and purpose in life. I can not wait for your feed back!!!!
Intelligent Design= Creationism. 16 pages and you don't know that evolution doesn't describe the origin of the universe?
No, I'm suggesting that the intelligent designer is a creator god imagined by those who are unable to contemplate the vast cosmological forces that contain the blueprint for lifeforms to exist. I am certainly not a Creationist and I apologise if I gave you that impression...no offence intended. I agree with your analysis: Creationism does seek to explain all existence. In my view, the sciences' expansion from the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, to theories of abiogenesis, exobiology, panspermia, astrobiology, will establish a coherent evolutionary cosmology accounting for both universal and local effects. Still I'm sure the ancient Greeks were well ahead on this one...
You can not say this. No one has ownership of the English language. Having written a book of over 170,000 words I know better than most how difficult it is to put ones thoughts into words. Please try to read what people are trying to say rather than make premature conclusions based on your shallow interpretations of words. There are nearly 7 billion people on this planet and all but a handful of academic wankers believe that something created life and the universe. But unfortunately most people who believe in a creator also prescribe to a religion. I have sometimes described myself as supporting Intelligent Design for this term does not specify any particular theology. I am aware however that ID is promoted by the Discovery Channel and this movement is sometimes labelled as Creationist. I have read a lot of the ID literature put out from the Discovery Channel and as far as I can see they keep their religion out of their science. However if you can suggest a term that better describes a belief in a creator, but not in a prescribed religious philosophy, then I would be happy to adopt it.
I am saying it. Intelligent Design is an attempt to promote creationism disguised as science. I am not implying that you believe in a particular theology, but you should know why it exists, that is, as a political move. ID might be described, but it is not promoted by the Discovery channel, which is not a scientific research organization.
But I'm sure you meant the Discovery Institute (which also has nothing to do with science). The Discovery Institute is a think tank structured as a non-profit foundation, founded in 1990 and based in Seattle, Washington, USA. The stated mission of the organization is to, "make a positive vision of the future practical." However, the institute's practices, particularly its campaign promoting intelligent design and the religious goal outlined in the institute's Wedge strategy to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" have placed it at the center of numerous controversies. [wiki] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
‘The Engineer’ by Neal L. Asher comes close to describing an ‘intelligent designer’ of a much more recognisable form... I will examine 'God Gametes' and report back - might take me a few hours but I promise a fair analysis. Great thread everyone...
Intelligent Design implies an intelligent designer implies a creator = creationism. This is all too clear to need any references or links. To slide the subject over just a wee bit, did you ever go to any Christian Science church? Christian "Science"? Contradiction in terms. Everything this denomination has to offer is ID in disquise.
Unless you can come up with a better term to describe my position I will continue to call myself an ID’er. I am sure a lot of people will ignore my arguments and paint me as a Christian Fundamentalists regardless of the terminology I use to describe my position. I have found that all you need to do is disagree with Darwinism and you are automatically termed a right wing, Christian Fundamentalist Jesus freak. I am sure you have the same problem. Those on the Christian right will likely try to label you as a racist (and a believer of Darwinist eugenics) for merely saying you believe in Darwinian natural selection. Treading the middle ground between these two fanatical camps is very difficult. Too many idiots on both sides of the argument. I think I have done enough reading on evolutionary biology. To suggest I would change my mind – or be better informed – by reading Darwin’s original work is rather shallow. Have you read my book?
First, I think the God Gametes (GG) theory, as any theory, is an asset to the common good…the debate shows diversity of thought that the length of this thread attests to. I had come across the GG theory some time ago and despite initial interest I dismissed it as technically flawed so it has been interesting to revisit in the context of everyone’s contributions to the thread. I tried the GG website but the server was out so most of this has been gleaned from unverifiable sources such as lulu.com which charges money to view the substantive elements of the theory. So I am unable to complete a proper analysis. Definition of my terms: God – an imaginary entity/unproven creator entity or entities. Gamete – a type of cell produced as part of sexual reproduction. Nearly all cells in the human body carry 2 sets of chromosomes/instructive growth material, one from each parent (generally); when sexual reproduction occurs some cells lose one set of chromosomes and become ‘gametes’…the gamete meets another gamete from another human and this gamete also has one set of chromosomes. The gametes fall in love (in the lady’s tummy) and fuse to form a zygote – a cell with a set of chromosomes from each parent and this grows to form a new human. If we apply Occams’ Razor then humans are more closely biologically-related to primates (physiological similarity, fossils, cultural analogy, DNA evidence) than an unidentified sea-creature with no life history, fossil or DNA evidence: The criticism is this: if by extreme coincidence a reproductive genetic mutation occurred and a sea creature, now extinct without trace, were to give birth to a single homo sapiens – how did sexual reproduction occur? Where did the other haploid gamete come from? Or, was it a virgin birth? Parthenogenesis? Gynogenesis? Early Cloning? Twins? Or did the extreme coincidence recur to cause another genetic mutation - coincidence A occurs followed by coincidence B (so what?)…but coincidence B is exactly the same coincidence as A…those odds are unexplainable. It is far more plausible that many creatures of a similar type evolved together. There could be a case for the idea that a mutation occurred and further sexual reproduction resulted in phentotypic characteristics that proffered advantage in the environment…but we’re no where near punctuated equilibrium and that’s even further than the GG position. In my opinion this nullifies the rest of the GG theory as a whole. On a positive note some of the elements of GG relating to e.g. multiverses are relevant in many other areas of discussion and I would encourage the theorist to explore this fully. I would also applaud the fact that you have engaged in debate with scientists and helped us to develop a common language whereby we can share our ideas. Good fortune to you. This analysis has challenged GG on the grounds of the original gamete paradox and in order to warrant further analysis the theorist must make plain the mechanism proposed to explain this paradox and make the substantive elements of the theory available for public or forum scrutiny. I do not intend to pay to criticise a theory… For a comprehensive summary of points against GG see message 200 (Raithere) in this thread.
I'm not sure why our association with a sea creature is necessary. Early humans used rafts and boats to cross the seas, which being of lower level, covered less land. You can call yourself whatever you want. It's just that you should know the orgin of "ID" was as an American political movement designed to deliberately subvert certain perceived "cultural forms" otherwise known as the scientific method. Nowhere have I called you a Christian Fundamentalist, nor have my comments been inspired by your criticism of Darwin, the 19th century naturalist. You are trying to label me some kind of reactionary, when all I have done is point out the flaws in your understanding of even the most basic scientific concepts. You're being evasive. Have you read "The Origin of Species" or not?
This is a realy weird forum. Who is saying that man evolved from marine mammals? Mammals - and then eventually hominids - arouse from reptiles (some were aquatic reptiles and before that fish) that were in the subclass called Synapsida. Synapsida first appeared 320 million years ago. The marine mammals today (whales, dolphins, porpoises) evolved from terrestrial mammals (Condylartha) about 60 million years ago that went back into the water. We have fossils that show this gradually reentry into the sea showing their first shallow-water reentry (Mesonychids) and the gradual morphological changes that took place. Some of these transitional species had pelvic limbs and foot bones just like land mammals. Fish have an entirely different evolutionary history. They never left the sea.
