It definately does suck that we won't be alive to find that out. I'd love to hear of intelligent life forms on a cool planet.

We may live to see colonization of the Moon/Mars though, although the space program hasn't been around long enough to really get a feel for their progress speed.

I hope we find a way to travel across the universe in a quick fashion. Wormholes or whatever ...there has to be something.

Interesting topic, so *bump*.

I believe we are all part of a greater conscience and the infinite consciousness our minds are all derived from purpose is realizing it's potential through discovery.

I believe in creation by subtraction.

I believe evolution is intelligent design.

I believe that we are coming into a golden age.

I believe that by changing the physical development of the brain one may perform things we may call impossible. Take autistic savants for example. There has been some research done on the Atlanteans and their skull structure. When their baby's skulls were still malleable they misshaped it with wooden boards. That could solve the mystery of how the pyramids were built. (People possessing the power to manipulate different environmental factors or create such to aid the building process such as magnetic fields below the ground.) If the stem of our consciousness is infinite, and the brain is a filter, it supports these views.

Mostly speculation.

I wish I was still young enough to believe things like this.

You're never too young to not be dogmatic.

I would never believe something if not for reason or evidence.

As soon as I find a counterexample I will put it aside and search for other answers. I won't dismiss it entirely, as the argument made against it may be disproven later on.

Why intelligent design, then?

There's no reason or evidence behind intelligent design.

But oh boy would I love to get into this again.

To add to what I said earlier:

If an intelligent designer created us, he's pathetic. He/she has an innumerable number of failed projects. His successful projects aren't that great either. From an engineering perspective, they are energy inefficient. The designer is absolutely unresourceful, giving us structures that are absolutely pointless to our well-being.

Furthermore, evolution by natural selection is the opposite of intelligent design. Organisms evolved to adapt to their environments. This is a purely natural process. An intelligent designer is not only superfluous, it is irreconcilable with the theory of evolution. We either evolved or were created. You can't have both.

Not that I believe in both, but I don't see why you can't have both? Is it not possible that some supernatural being came up with the system of natural selection?

Is it also impossible that a creator of some sort didn't give us the BEST of everything because it wanted to see how well it's system of natural selection worked and to see how we would go about making things better than they are?

Like I said, I don't believe these things, but I don't see how they're entirely impossible. If I were a supernatural being I could imagine myself doing something similar.

Everything in our universe is a consequence of natural laws. Once you have a replicating molecule, evolution by natural selection is a corollary. It is not impossible that an intelligent designer designed the universe, it's just superfluous. It is just as likely that two parent universes had sex and created our universe.

When you throw together the term intelligent design, it usually adds a lot of baggage. Generally, "macroevolution" is thrown out. Different forms were created by a designer, and then "microevolution" took over. The fossil record unequivocally shows otherwise. This form of intelligent design I would say is impossible.

Even then, who's to say that fossil records are true? Perhaps they were planted by a creator so we would not catch on to their existance.

Once again, I don't believe that, but I do believe that it is absolutely absurd for anyone to say they know any better than anyone else. While your theories are possible, so is every other theory that anyone comes up with, and until we know something for sure, which most likely we never will, your theories are no better than anyone elses.

I will admit that your theories might be more likely, but that does not mean that they are right, or even close to right, and it does not mean that people who have different theories are wrong.

Science goes where the evidence leads. The theories are better because they are based on evidence, nothing else. If the predictions from the theories prove true, then the theory holds. That is the ultimate test. If the predictions are all true, then the the theory is right as far as the natural world is concerned.

The idea that anything is possible is comforting. If you want to believe that, that's your prerogative. But any theory you give serious consideration should be based on the facts, and any superfluous postulates should be removed.

There is an absolute right or wrong. While we may have no way of absolutely ascertaining what is right or wrong, I contend that it is far more absurd to assert a conjecture with no evidence than to assert one backed by evidence.

But how can you verify that your evidence is true? Like I said, it could have been planted by a creator and it could be laughing at you right now because you're foolish enough to think that you actually know anything.


I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. - Socrates

Based on the evidence, theories are made. Theories make predictions. To verify the theory you see if the predictions hold. If the theory is verified, it is fairly safe to say that the evidence was legitimate.

The operative word there is fairly. You can never know anything for sure. Even scientific fact is not fact. For all you know, everything you know is completely untrue. It could all be an illusion.

Until your theory is "verified", if it every truly can be(which it can't,) it's no more valid or invalid than any other theory.

Yes, I believe in evolution. I would say our beliefs are very, very similar. However, I'm not foolish enough to think that I'm any more right in my beliefs than anyone else is. I can choose to believe one thing over another based on "evidence", but there is no way that I can say that Christians are wrong, or Muslims are wrong, or Scientologists are wrong.

I don't think it's absurd to say you believe something. I think it is quite absurd to say you know something. There's a pretty distinct difference.

Lending the same credence to the .000001% as to the 99.99999% is absurd.

By your definition of the word, nothing can truly be known. Again, you're free to subscribe to that philosophy if you want. Even if this were true, it's a jump from there to saying that all theories should be treated with respect. Meanwhile, most people are going to continue to subscribe to the philosophy of what I can sense is what reality is.

Evolution is not something I believe in. No more than you can say that I believe in gravity. Or that I believe I exist.

"Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know."

Oh how appropriate that quote is! I'm getting giddy.

Cute, but you're not advocating that at all. You're saying, take what you know and assume you don't know it.