ID - what a joke

At my web site I posted why ID it is a joke. There is a article.
What it is a ID?. It is a creation of something by an intelligent being. Mainstream media and even president Bush accept the idea of ID on our(?) planet. The question remains of - what intelligence have to do with design a place where one life form feed on another to survival. Nothing.
Intelligence being will design a place of a peace and harmony.
The planet Earth it is symbol of “eat or be eaten” and it is a dangerous planet for any intelligent life form.
Why would one design a life form and then design another to kill the first one. Only a sick mind will do this - not intelligent.From all those life form on this planet - human only have a understanding of a death and destruction.
How did a human become resident on this planet? - I am sure that not by a choice, but rather by necessity.
It has been proven that human do not need to consume a flesh for survival, but rather acquire a taste for. Human body was not design to be a carnivore, but rather vegetarian.
How some will design a different life forms and control the population?. Very simple. Reproduce in a small numbers in large time interval - that how a intelligent being will design a life form. The sick of a mind will let those life form to overpopulate and then find a way to destroy most of them in some time interval or design counter in a form of a carnivals.God and Evil and so where is the God?. I am sure that a God will be more intelligent as a supreme being and will design a peaceful place. Evil will design a place of a death and destruction.If the God design a garden of Eden - who design the rest of this planet?. A sick of a mind “mother f….”.
The most popular book- the Bible pointing to a “those who come from heaven” supposedly created a life on this planet. One created an ” Garden of Eden” with peace and tranquility and another ( not so intelligent) created a “living hell” for the rest of those life forms. God - as supreme being - had nothing to do with.
So who we are and where we come from. We do not belong to this planet.
If evolution (by adaptation to a environment) created many different species and controlled by a Mother Nature - I will called a Mother of all bitches - where the human fits. Man can act as a monkey, but monkey never will become a human. Since I pointed that God have nothing to do with - who created or how we end up on this planet.
Some claim that an intelligent being created a human to be a slave to a “Gods”. Intelligence have nothing to do with those beings. Darvin statement that we evolved from a monkey it is a joke. Are we a beings escaped from another planet?. If that is the case then where are the memory of any technical advances. we was able to travel trough a space before?. Trough the time - did we forgot of who we are and become an animals - like the rest of this planet?.
So many questions and not a clue. Let the journey begins.
Facts: God created the universe and this planet.
Facts: God did not created a life on this planet.
Facts: Some sick MF created a life on this planet.
Facts: Humans were not created by the God.
Facts: Human leave on this planet for unknown period of time.
Facts: Only humans on this planet have advance brain functions and development.
Facts: Only humans are capable of destroying of a any life form.
Facts: Not any life form can destroy a humans (alligator can not kill you unless you get too close, but you can kill alligator from a safe distance).
Facts: Humans are like a gods to all the life form on this planet.
Facts: Humans lost contact with the God and - by their actions - become like a mindless animals.
Facts: Human fear of another human - we are the enemy of our self.
Facts: Humans murder a humans for a difference of a ethnic group or religion.
Facts: Animals kill for a food and for right to a populate.
Facts: Humans kill for a pleasure.
Facts: Humans was ( and some are) a vegetarian, but develop a taste for a flesh.
ID - what a joke on Earth

Sounds like a bunch of conjecture to me. Seriously though if you're going to list facts, site some sources.

I do apology for not timely response as I drive a truck and not always have a time to get on net. The facts I pointed are not widely pointed actual facts, but rather common sense. I did not witness the creation of this planet and therefore it is rather a speculation. The God did not created the life forms on this planet and the simple explanation would be: God as supreme being it is intelligent and -as I pointed before- intelligent being will NOT create a place of a death,pain and destruction. The biblical Eden would be a work of an intelligent being, but what about of the rest of this planet?. It would make no sense.
Got to roll.

Originally posted by liesnomore

So many questions and not a clue. Let the journey begins.
Facts: God created the universe and this planet. - can you prove it? no so not a fact or common sense just speculation

Facts: God did not created a life on this planet.- can you prove it? no so not a fact or common sense just speculation

Facts: Some sick MF created a life on this planet.- can you prove it? no so not a fact or common sense just speculation

Facts: Humans were not created by the God. - this id agree with

Facts: Human leave on this planet for unknown period of time.- well we know roughly how long homosapien sapien has been around and before that homo sapien and before that etc so wrong

Facts: Only humans on this planet have advance brain functions and development. - wrong many animals show comparable intellignce functions
if not the complexity, were special but NOT that special

Facts: Only humans are capable of destroying of a any life form. - are we talking about purley animals here destroying them? the enviroment does a much better job then us of killing things

Facts: Not any life form can destroy a humans (alligator can not kill you unless you get too close, but you can kill alligator from a safe distance). -
o_0 snakes spiders bees scorpions lions tigers bears Oh my! so becasue we can shoot them at disytance they cant kill us? dispite most of them you dont see till its to late interms of ambush predators

Facts: Humans are like a gods to all the life form on this planet. - no were lunch to a bunch of them if we arnt careful

Facts: Humans lost contact with the God and - by their actions - become like a mindless animals. - animals are anything but mindless

Facts: Human fear of another human - we are the enemy of our self. - we also fear snakes and spiders shall we have a war against those?

Facts: Humans murder a humans for a difference of a ethnic group or religion. - agreed

Facts: Animals kill for a food and for right to a populate. - agreed

Facts: Humans kill for a pleasure. - some do but then again so do some animals

Facts: Humans was ( and some are) a vegetarian, but develop a taste for a flesh. - actually we were omnivores eating bugs and other small animals that came our way, the meat we learnt to gather gave us a massive boost in evolutionary fitness .... if we were vegetarians we wouldnt be were we are today

About the religion - I do not go to church. The existence of the God can not be proven. Human can destroy any life form on this planet and yes- some predator can sneak on you if you are not careful. My point is that the intelligent life form will never design this form of a life where the "eat or be eaten" is way of a life.
I do believe that some sick of a mind design a life form on this planet.
I do not believe that God design a life on this planet, but I do believe in existence of the God just not the way a religion describe.
I do believe that humans were design by some unknown more advance visitor for purpose of being a labor, but intelligence have nothing to do with those visitors. Intelligent visitor will not create a life form for labor or amusement.
The only intelligent being - in my opinion - it is the God, but it is a pure speculation as can not be proven.

Just for the record, the 12/29/08 net version of "New Scientist" has some very good arguments on evolution. And the 1/09 issue of Scientific American has the whole issue dedicated to what evolution really is, what we have learned post Darwin, and takes the ID camp on by pointing out several ellements that can never be proven because it's based on the untestability of any religion. Good issue.

Evolution, but rather adaptation to environment could evolve some species to some point, but I do not believe that humans evolved from a monkey.
While we have a lot of in common with animal world, jet we do have significant difference.
DNA of humans differs from chimpanzee DNA by as little as 1% and from gorillas by only 2%. This makes it appear to those who are uneducated in the science of genetics, that evolution is
quite obviously correct and humans and primates are virtually cousins. However, what they never seem to mention is that the human DNA tree has three billion base pairs and so 1% of this is in fact, 30 million base pairs. Now, 30 million base pairs is, in reality, a tremendous amount of
difference between the two species by any measure. And of course with Gorillas, that would be 60 million base pairs.
Primates also suffer from very few genetic disorders apart from perhaps Albinism, which is a gene common in a variety of animals groups, including humans. By way of comparison, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders; several that will most definitely kill absolutely every victim!
So, are we asked to believe that these disorders manifested in our evolution to a ‘higher and more improved species’?
One of the most undeniable and obvious differences of all between the species can also be found in the fact that primates have 48 chromosomes yet humans, who are considered to be vastly superior to them in the evolutionary chain have only 46 chromosomes! So, how in the world
could we just lose two full chromosomes in this ‘evolutionary improvement process’ we are supposed to have undergone? Two full chromosomes is an awful lot of DNA to just disappear!
The notion that humans was rather " created" that evolved from primates it is more appealing where DNA manipulation could take a place.
The Bible Genesis comes from a Babylonians and Babylonians "copy" from Sumerians. The Sumerian tablets "talk" about creation of Earth and Humans. Those tablets do not mention of creation of any other life forms. That would suggest that present life forms was indeed present on this planet before humans was "created". The time of human 'creation" is around 7000BC and do not contradict with a Bible as anyone can count back the chronology and
come to that number. If the India and Sumerian chronicles are correct when goes to a "war between a Gods" and use of a nuclear weapons then our carbon dated readings would be incorrect.
Again - those chronicles are not proven beyond a doubts, but those chronicles is what we have to find our origin. The question of interpretation of those chronicles did arisen as some experts in Sumerian language pointed of some mistakes, but those mistakes are not much significant when goes to the basic interpretation.
I do believe that humans were created from existing life form by a DNA manipulation for a purpose of being a labor, but our "creators" - while way more advanced in technology" - were not much more intelligent as humans in modern history.

Originally posted by liesnomore
Evolution, but rather adaptation to environment could evolve some species to some point, but I do not believe that humans evolved from a monkey.

your free to believe that no matter how wrong it is

While we have a lot of in common with animal world, jet we do have significant difference.

not really we just do the same things other animals do we just do it better in some cases

DNA of humans differs from chimpanzee DNA by as little as 1% and from gorillas by only 2%. This makes it appear to those who are uneducated in the science of genetics, that evolution is
quite obviously correct and humans and primates are virtually cousins.

and it also appears to be true for anyone with knowledge of genetics, did you know the number of mutations divided by the average mutation per generation per population rates then multiplied by the average generation age comes out and dam near exactly the age we had already worked out the human/chimp split

yet more evidence

However, what they never seem to mention is that the human DNA tree has three billion base pairs and so 1% of this is in fact, 30 million base pairs. Now, 30 million base pairs is, in reality, a tremendous amount of difference between the two species by any measure.

around 6.5 million years worth of mutations with an average generation age of 20 for the human muations

did you know we share more dna with chimps then horses do with zebra?

Primates also suffer from very few genetic disorders apart from perhaps Albinism,

science begs to differ downsyndrome is just one we share

known to be the basis of certain genetic defects, with their phylogenetic roots in primate evolution. From a differential distribution of Alu repeats among primate species, we identify the phylogenetic roots of three human genetic diseases involving the LPL, ApoB, and HPRT genes. The different phylogenetic age of these genetic disorders could explain the different susceptibility of various primate species to genetic diseases. Our results show that LPL deficiency is the oldest and should affect humans, apes, and monkeys. ApoB deficiency should affect humans and great apes, while a disorder in the HPRT gene (leading to the Lesch-Nyhan syndrome) is unique to human, chimpanzee, and gorilla. Similar results can be obtained for cancer

The researchers calculated that these stretches of human and chimp DNA contained approximately 140,000 non-advantageous mutations, higher than expected and well above the number of retained genetic mutations seen in rats and mice. The mutations occur naturally but make both chimps and humans more susceptible to diseases with a genetic basis, such as cancer.

www.newscientist.com...

we have our very own genetic disease's, ones we share with chimps, ones we share with chimp/gorilla, and ones we share with most primates

chimps bonobo and humans are the most likley to suffer genetic disease of all the primates and each have shared and thier own gentic disorders, and the numbers are comparable, reasearch on primate gentic diseases and thier casues is more limited then in humans but we have identifed plenty of them if not thier cause

are we asked to believe that these disorders manifested in our evolution to a ‘higher and more improved species’?

no becasue we(primates) all suffer from them

One of the most undeniable and obvious differences of all between the species can also be found in the fact that primates have 48 chromosomes yet humans, who are considered to be vastly superior to them in the evolutionary chain have only 46 chromosomes! So, how in the world could we just lose two full chromosomes in this ‘evolutionary improvement process’ we are supposed to have undergone? Two full chromosomes is an awful lot of DNA to just disappear!

it didnt disappear we still have them

not only do we still have them but when compared they are again very very similar to chimps

and chromosones are not and indicator of complexity

guinea pigs 56
adders tongue ferm 1,440
Kingfisher 132
silk worm 56

even our dna base count is staggering small compared to others, even a grain of rice has more complex dna then us

I do believe that humans were created from existing life form by a DNA manipulation for a purpose of being a labor, but our "creators" - while way more advanced in technology" - were not much more intelligent as humans in modern history.

science begs to differ and so would anyone with a knowledge of genetics, theres nothing in ours to really stand out from the crowd

using Erv markers to create philogenetic trees that again show common decent
www.pnas.org...


so ive really gotta ask if we were "Designed" why did they only manage to make the same number of genetic alterations we would already expect to find after roughly 6 million years of divergence with chimps?




[edit on 7/1/09 by noobfun]

Going back to Sumerian tablets - the first humanoid did not possess the ability to speech and reproduce. The ability to speech was added latter but the ability to reproduce was deny. The reason we all have so much in common with monkey is that more likely the primates was a base and "improved" for a suitable tasks. The "creators" latter added a ability to speech for better communication. The ability to reproduce was added by a small group of "creators" against wishes of majority and that was the time when the humanoids were expelled form a main location(Garden of Eden). The biblical "Tree of Life" was misinterpreted as the reason for expelling. It was not the knowledge of being naked(sin) but the ability to reproduce. Those was "marked" -in some religion claim to be chosen - as they did not have a facial hair. I do understand your position on evolution and adaptation to environment did took a place after the "creation" of a humans ,but you can not teach a primate to speak. No other life form posses a ability to speech. In billions of years of evolution it should be more life form with ability to speech and do more tasks that eat,pup and reproduce.

Originally posted by liesnomore
At my web site I posted why ID it is a joke. There is a article.

Is it different than this post? If so, do you have a link?

What it is a ID?.

"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion."

It's not about 'monkeys and man' (i.e., common ancestry) but about guided evolution versus unguided. Also known as teleology. Man is still an evolved primate (or can be) in an ID model.

It is a creation of something by an intelligent being. Mainstream media and even president Bush accept the idea of ID on our(?) planet.

Citation? So far as I'm aware the MSM does not endorse ID. Some say it is just flat out wrong (i.e., that the 'design' is "illusory") others may agree with it but, say it is philosophy or metaphysics and, therefore, not science. Either way, ID is a minority position.

Last month Bush clarified his belief with respect to evolution saying, "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution." adding to that he also said, "I'm not a literalist"

In other words, he is a Theistic Evolutionist, which is neither Intelligent Design or Creationism. [Wikipedia: Theistic Evolution]

The question remains of - what intelligence have to do with design a place where one life form feed on another to survival. Nothing.
Intelligence being will design a place of a peace and harmony.

This is a philosophical statement (or a theological one, if you're portending to know the mind of God and what He must do.) How have you determined what this Uber Intelligence must and did do?

The planet Earth it is symbol of “eat or be eaten” and it is a dangerous planet for any intelligent life form.

The 'facts on the ground' say something completely different, no? In other words, if Earth is so dangerous for intelligent beings why have we been increasing in number ever since our first appearance here? Seems the model/design has been successful thus far, no? "Be fruitful and multiply" and all that. Seems to have been a smashing success.

How did a human become resident on this planet? - I am sure that not by a choice, but rather by necessity.

Could you elaborate on this?

It has been proven that human do not need to consume a flesh for survival, but rather acquire a taste for. Human body was not design to be a carnivore, but rather vegetarian.

Had our ancient ancestors not eaten meat our brains would not have had the protein/nutrients needed to evolve and sustain larger (more intelligent) brains. [Source]

The most popular book- the Bible pointing to a “those who come from heaven” supposedly created a life on this planet. One created an ” Garden of Eden” with peace and tranquility and another ( not so intelligent) created a “living hell” for the rest of those life forms. God - as supreme being - had nothing to do with.

Could you provide the scriptural references you are using here?

So who we are and where we come from. We do not belong to this planet.

How is it then that life on Earth has developed to be in tune with the cycles of daylight and darkness that stem from our planet's 24 hour rotation?

How is it then that the molecular DNA switch was found to be the same for all life on Earth?


Those are just a couple examples with respect to humans being linked to the Earth's biosphere, there are many more. I'm sure you take my meaning though.

Darvin statement that we evolved from a monkey it is a joke.

Whose joke? Darwin said we are 'cousins' whom evolved from a common ancestor several million years ago vis-a-vis Natural Selection acting on random variation. [On The Origin of Species] For what it's worth chimps are currently believed to be our closest (extant) relatives.


I skipped over the 'facts' and some of the other stuff as I fear I may be missing your larger point here.

Regards.

[edit on Wed Jan 7 2009 by Rren]

(edits)couple typos

[edit on Wed Jan 7 2009 by Rren]

Originally posted by liesnomore
Going back to Sumerian tablets - the first humanoid did not possess the ability to speech and reproduce. The ability to speech was added latter but the ability to reproduce was deny.

i dont really mind where you go back to, but you should really show how they are accurate and totally hitoric before using them as a source other wise its no more valid then a copy of any hans christian anderson story book

Way back with Homo Habalis we find the neccessary brain structure and throat structure for early speech and thats going back 2-1.5 million years

which means Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens sapiens all had speech or at least the ability for and there's very strong evidence Homo sapiens neandertalensis also had speech they carry the same FOXP2 gene modifications as homo sapiens sapiens and genetic errors in the FOXP2 gene expression have massive impact on language ability in humans

so which one was the engineered one?

also if they were sterile then they would have all been grown in a lab effectivley clones which would decimate genetic diversity and we would be genetically bankrupt and facing extinction at any minute like cheetah are as they have almost no genetic diversity they are so inbreed, so they would have needed to add it to all the slaves and in the first generation otherise youl lose the genetic diversity with the second generation that would have to be grown in labs, if these are slaves your not going to care about genetic diversity you can clone them all day long from just 1 human genome

the sumarian tablets dont date back 2 million years to the birth of speech so how does that work?

The reason we all have so much in common with monkey is that more likely the primates was a base and "improved" for a suitable tasks.

but what task? physical labour? were stageringly weak when compared to our ape cousins a chimp will happily and literally rip your arm off and beat you to death with it

wouldnt a better slave species carry both the strength of earlier homonids and proto apes but just given a larger brain size and increased comlexity in the brain?

Those was "marked" -in some religion claim to be chosen - as they did not have a facial hair. I do understand your position on evolution and adaptation to environment did took a place after the "creation" of a humans ,but you can not teach a primate to speak. No other life form posses a ability to speech.

speech and comunication/language are different things many modern animals have complex language

if you take the example of the old world green monkeys they have calls for the different predators not only that but multipul species co-operate each species understands thier own calls and the calls of the other 15+ species in the neighbourhood watch group they are all multilingual

capuchins have semi complex language systems which they use to aid co-operation within the group, and quite suprisingly they also use it to lie to the group for personal gain

In billions of years of evolution it should be more life form with ability to speech and do more tasks that eat,pup and reproduce.

why should there? that would only be true if survival for all species depended on it

not all species of animals have lungs, no plants have lungs, very few fish have lungs, many amphibians dont either, no bacteria or insects have lungs

so speech would only evolve if it had a direct survival benefit, or in our case we have speech ability not becasue it was useful but as a by product from our improving brain complexity which did help us survive

what do you mean by more tasks? culture? many primates display basic culture, with our tool use (thanks complex brain structure ) we could survive more easily we had time on our hands somthing very few other species of primate do so we could develop our culture further

Homo sapiens neandertalensis cared for thier crippled and buried thier dead and show signs of early religeous practice thats more then just eating pooping and pupping

most primates have social structures and social culture that mans they take specific time out for bonding and social strengthening that goes above and beyond

[edit on 7/1/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by liesnomore
...Intelligence being will design a place of a peace and harmony. ...

I quit reading at this sentence. Do you know why?

What logical fallacy have you committed in that sentence?

My web site is liesnomore.net. The point of this article is that intelligence nave nothing in common with popular ID. I would called RD(ruthless design).
Advance technology it is not a sign of intelligence. Intelligent life form could have advanced technology, but we did not found one so far( at least they do not want to present them self).
Naming design of a life on this planet as of the ID it is a joke and insult on intelligent beings.

reply to post by liesnomore


Liesnomore, you clearly have some definite beliefs about who or what made humans and animals on earth. Maybe you're right. Maybe an alien being created humans and animals through some sort of genetic engineering and programmed us to crave the consumption of other life forms. Hell, I don't know.

It would be easier to read your stuff if you spaced it a little. Otherwise, I appreciate your passion.

Keep it up.

Intelligent Design? hmmm. perhaps if we wind up creating a robot that we have used intelligent deign to create a form of life, or perhaps a bunch of metal objects were thrown together and assembled themsleves to create a robot. You do realize that if science is able to create life in the lab, which I doubt they will, it will prove that life needs intelligence to begin.... Its all a loop that leads to the fact- Life gives Life, nothing cannot create something...

[edit on -06002009-01-21T19:06:48-06:00312009bAmerica/ChicagoWed, 21 Jan 2009 19:06:48 -0600, 1 by TheMythLives]

theres a differeacne between making life in labs such as us making our own viruses from scratch

and creating enviorments where things self organise to create the startings of life, in multipul experiments(not just the miller uray beforte someone jumps on that bandwagon) orgnaic elements that occcur naturaly have do and will self form into more complex compounds

some of those are fatty acids, which self form into fatty acid vesicles a very basic cell structure

we have seen rna self form and organise just by thier ingredients being available with no help from man

we have seen polymers recombine to form Rna like structures

we are working on self replicating self forming polymers the probable precursor to rna

if we create life in the lab by putting the stuff there and letting it o it its self that doesnt require intelligence anymore then pouing oil on water requires intelligence to seperate them and make the oil float

we may never be able to do it start to finish becasue of time but as we create or recreate each event as a part we can understand how they work when intergrated together and map out the probable way it happened

its not a matter of life gives life we have no workable deffinition of what life is, its orgnaic elements forming organic compounds forming organic structures within organic shells that self replicate

and thats really all a cell is organic structures in an organic shell carrying out organic chemistry

life is special and extraordinary but its not magic, but its process is magical(in the awe sense)

I am not looking to get into the intelligent design debate. However, the OP has missed one vital piece of the story in regards to Creation as its found in Genesis. Simply that according to scripture, nothing was created to be carnivorous. That came about as a result of the fall of man, and sin entering the world. The scripture explains that after the fall from grace, the world became altered, and death entered the world. Before the fall, there was no such thing as death, and that apparently included with animals as well. If you read some of the Pseudopigraphal texts, you will even find that mans body was altered after being expelled from the garden.

Originally posted by defcon5
I am not looking to get into the intelligent design debate. However, the OP has missed one vital piece of the story in regards to Creation as its found in Genesis. Simply that according to scripture, nothing was created to be carnivorous. That came about as a result of the fall of man, and sin entering the world. The scripture explains that after the fall from grace, the world became altered, and death entered the world. Before the fall, there was no such thing as death, and that apparently included with animals as well. If you read some of the Pseudopigraphal texts, you will even find that mans body was altered after being expelled from the garden.

That's one of the most nonsensical things I have read (in the past 2 minutes - as this post is quite nonsensical in parts).
SO can you please explain what all the carnivorous animals used to eat before the 'fall' and why they had sharp pointy teeth and claws etc? What about sharks and the like? What did the serpent that tempted eve eat (having fangs and venom)?

Also remember Pseudopigraphal means things falsely ascribed to.

Or am I missing some sarcastic point here?


G

Originally posted by liesnomore
Going back to Sumerian tablets - the first humanoid did not possess the ability to speech and reproduce.

No reproduction?

Thats one of my favorite parts about being human!
Wheres the fun in that?

I kind of understand the whole no speech thing sometimes I dont want to hear a word from my woman. But still the no reproduction thing is for the birds!

and by deffinition by biting and digesting the fruit from the tree they killed it so did the fall happen as eve took the first bite? as adam took the second? or when god found out later? becasue somewhere in all that a piece of fruit died

and if all the animals were eating plants then they were killing the plants and the plants died ......