Home | Community | Message Board

HighDesertSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: OldWoodSpecter]
    #4643230 - 09/10/05 08:56 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

when people make a car in the factory, the process can be dysected in creating doors, engine etc.

You are assuming a few things:
1. intelligent design is supose to explain the creation of the universe. Well we ain't talking about that, we are talking about life on earth.
2. intelligent design relates to religion.

Now, take the words "intelligent design" and pull out information that comes out of them. The information is:
-it's a design, meaning life is result of WORK and not random events,
-it's intelligent, meaning the worker was intelligent and knew what he was doing

please do not go outside these two words, we are talking about these two words only




I never deviated from these two words. We can never verify any design created from intelligence, nor can we ever test it. Hence, it is a result of faith, and not science. I am only talking about life on earth; we can't use life to verify intelligent design, less likely the entire universe.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4643247 - 09/10/05 09:01 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Science is in the same quandary. What made he planet, what made the cell? What made the molecule? What made the atom? What made the electron. What made the quark, what made the gluon.




That's why science doesn't make baseless claims about existence and call them theories, like intelligent design does. Science doesn't have an existence hypothesis even to my knowledge, because there's no evidence, observations or experience to know existence itself or its origins. All science can currently do is observe the products of existence, which is the known universe, life, general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Quote:

Does anyone yet have a name for one who believes in the intelligent design of evolution and the evolution of intelligent design, but not the Biblical God as the source of all creation?




A pseudoscientist?  :wink:

Just kidding, that would only apply if you tried to pass intelligent design off as science. Intelligent design in and of itself based on faith doesn't matter to me, as it's just like any other unsupported faith-based belief. But when people try to say it's a viable alternative to the actual scientific theories with evidence and logic on their side, and, Jesus forbid, actually teach it in science class, then I have a major problem.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4643272 - 09/10/05 09:08 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Design Yes, Intelligent No
A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism
The claims by Behe, Dembski, and other "intelligent design" creationists that science should be opened to supernatural explanations and that these should be allowed in academic as well as public school curricula are unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of both design in nature and of what the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is all about.
Massimo Pigliucci



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new brand of creationism has appeared on the scene in the last few years. The so-called neocreationists largely do not believe in a young Earth or in a too literal interpretation of the Bible. While still mostly propelled by a religious agenda and financed by mainly Christian sources such as the Templeton Foundation and the Discovery Institute, the intellectual challenge posed by neocreationism is sophisticated enough to require detailed consideration (see Edis 2001; Roche 2001).
Among the chief exponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory, as this new brand of creationism is called, is William Dembski, a mathematical philosopher and author of The Design Inference (1998a). In that book he attempts to show that there must be an intelligent designer behind natural phenomena such as evolution and the very origin of the universe (see Pigliucci 2000 for a detailed critique). Dembki's (1998b) argument is that modern science ever since Francis Bacon has illicitly dropped two of Aristotle's famous four types of causes from consideration altogether, thereby unnecessarily restricting its own explanatory power. Science is thus incomplete, and intelligent design theory will rectify this sorry state of affairs, if only close-minded evolutionists would allow Dembski and company to do the job.

Found this online and thought it to be interesting and on topic.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4643276 - 09/10/05 09:10 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Why can't the process itself be the Intelligent Designer?

It could be, but He is not in evidence.

Just because you don't know what, if anything, set the universe into motion does not mean that is has to have been a designer. It could also have been nothing at all.

In the absence of evidence, it is better to withhold drawing a conclusion than it is to make up a magical one. That kind of reasoning is what held man back and kept the inquisition going for so long. It also happens to be what fuels religious terrorism.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: Diploid]
    #4643314 - 09/10/05 09:21 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

okay, let me just cut in while I'm searching for the Wikipedia link to Intelligent Design, and let me say:

STOP DEBATING!!!!

THIS THREAD WAS MEANT TO PROPOSE A WAY TO TEST IDT, NOT PHILOSOPHISE ABOUT IT!

Geez, I go away from my comp for a few hours and come back to chaos...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: dr0mni]
    #4643328 - 09/10/05 09:24 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Perhaps there is a way.

Intelligent design is the hypothesis, so we need to devise an experiment to test either the intelligence or the design. The design we cannot really test, since the design itself doesn't prove intelligence, so of course we must target the first word.

My experiment will include burning a 10-question IQ test into the Sahara desert and, underneath it, putting a big, "FUCK YOU INTELLIGENCE!" to draw his attention. He will then use his intelligence to take the IQ test, and if he gets at least a passing grade, we will conclude that Intelligent Design is true.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: dr0mni]
    #4643329 - 09/10/05 09:25 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

"How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory?"

Substitute the word 'God' for the words 'Intelligent Design' above, and you will have a more concise question. The answer will then become self-evident.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: Ravus]
    #4643335 - 09/10/05 09:27 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

If they teach the Bible creation story under the name of ID then, why not just call a spade a spade.

I see what you are saying about pseudo science related to using a "scientific sounding term" to front for creationism.

What I am asking about is, what is someone, who not only observes how intelligent a design of evolution is and experiences relativity with intelligence who doesn't believe in a Biblical God called?

It's near impossible to call something like a chrysalis unintelligent in design. if you recognize the intelligence of the design, why are you a creationists or pseudo scientist?

It's near impossible to say it just is a product of evolution without sounding like a church goer who says "God just is".

Anyway, Dromni didn't post this to discuss the ID taught in schools debate.

He asked if anyone can prove intelligent design without really defining what HE meant by it. Back to him and is question, are our bodies not designs? Are we not intelligent and can we not create designs? I think he is and has his proof, unless he means something else.

If he wanted to know if anyone can prove the existance of the Biblical God, then he is just as guiulty of fronting with a phrase like Intelligent Design.

Again I ask, why can't I think a tree is an intelligent design of evolution and that evolution itself is an intelligent design and not beleive in the Biblical God at the same time? Why can't I say, I think the intelligent designer is found in the intelligence of the designs of evolution itself?

What is incorrect or unscientific about that statement?


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4643341 - 09/10/05 09:31 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

It's not necessarily incorrect, anymore than all of religion is incorrect, but it is unscientific because Intelligent Design cannot be tested by science, and is therefore unscientific, or at least in a different category than science.

Science does not include Intelligent Design/ God/ the Tao/ gods because they cannot be tested by science, simple as that. If you want to take the leap of faith to actually believe an Intelligent Designer created evolution, I have no problem with it, but it is not science because it cannot be tested, experimented on or invalidated.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: dr0mni]
    #4643342 - 09/10/05 09:32 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

this is what I mean by "Intelligent Design"

I firmly believe that divinity underlies all natural laws and phenomena, SCIENCE = GOD.

From the Wiki article:

"Proponents of ID look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence ? physical properties of an object that imply "design". The most common cited signs being considered include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design theorists believe that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to mainstream explanations of systems, which explain the natural world exclusively through impersonal physical processes such as random mutations and natural selection. ID proponents claim that while evidence pointing to the nature of an "Intelligent Designer" may not be observable, its effects on nature can be detected."

So basically, living organisms are too complex to just have "happend by chance". Okay, that is a somewhat reasonable assumption, but it does not immediatly point to design by intelligence.

HOW would it be possible to prove that organisms were in fact DESIGNED? Should ID scientists look for organic phenomena that DEFY "random chance/natural laws"? Or should we look for an all pervasive, trans-dimensional consiousness or intelligence?

simply "experiancing" ID, as many of you have suggested, does not suffice as a way to scientifically prove it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineOldWoodSpecter
waiting
Male

Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: dr0mni]
    #4643365 - 09/10/05 09:39 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

dr0mni said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

this is what I mean by "Intelligent Design"

I firmly believe that divinity underlies all natural laws and phenomena, SCIENCE = GOD.

From the Wiki article:

"Proponents of ID look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence ? physical properties of an object that imply "design". The most common cited signs being considered include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design theorists believe that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to mainstream explanations of systems, which explain the natural world exclusively through impersonal physical processes such as random mutations and natural selection. ID proponents claim that while evidence pointing to the nature of an "Intelligent Designer" may not be observable, its effects on nature can be detected."

So basically, living organisms are too complex to just have "happend by chance". Okay, that is a somewhat reasonable assumption, but it does not immediatly point to design by intelligence.

HOW would it be possible to prove that organisms were in fact DESIGNED? Should ID scientists look for organic phenomena that DEFY "random chance/natural laws"? Or should we look for an all pervasive, trans-dimensional consiousness or intelligence?

simply "experiancing" ID, as many of you have suggested, does not suffice as a way to scientifically prove it.




Just by looking at cells it would be almost impossible to find out if they were manufactured or not.
BUT, since we are so good at investigating past, we can always reconstruct past events.
If earth was once watter and stone, and a creator came to it and decided to make life, he must have left some kind of trace because if he existed he had to obey the laws of the universe. In other words, he was either matter or energy, or quantum-bubble-gum-matter or made out of spagetti as diploid likes to mention, whatever.
If he existed there must be a way to prove it.


--------------------
I descend upon your earth from the skies
I command your very souls you unbelievers
Bring before me what is mine


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: Ravus]
    #4643369 - 09/10/05 09:39 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Ravus, I never said that an intelligent designer created evolution.

In all of my post I never said it.

I said that I think evolution is an intelligent design and that evolution comes up with intelligent designs. Do you see the difference? I can observe the intelligence of and in evolution withot belief in a intelligent designer apart from evolution or what has evolved into being observable.

I make that comment as an observer only.

Again, why is what I just said, incorrect or unscientific?
You may say because there is no measure for testing intelligence. We have IQ tests. Can something non intelligent create a living and breathing bird? If evolution created it then evolution is the intelligent designer, is it not?


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: dr0mni]
    #4643375 - 09/10/05 09:41 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

In biology class we were taught about abiogenesis ("the creation of life without life"). My teacher told us about an experiment that was done were a scientist combined the substances that made up the earth around the time that life was thought to have begun. He subjected this brew to electricity, to simulate lighting, UV radiation, and other such things to replicate pre-life earth.

After a while proteins formed inside the brew. These proteins were observed to come together in long chains, and after they were too long, they would break apart again. These proteins display two characteristics of life. They grew, and then multiplied. Although this is a very simple chemical reaction, and they did not actually multiply in numbers, it provides interesting clues as to how life could have begun out of raw, non-biological materials....


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineOldWoodSpecter
waiting
Male

Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: Ravus]
    #4643400 - 09/10/05 09:45 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
Quote:

when people make a car in the factory, the process can be dysected in creating doors, engine etc.

You are assuming a few things:
1. intelligent design is supose to explain the creation of the universe. Well we ain't talking about that, we are talking about life on earth.
2. intelligent design relates to religion.

Now, take the words "intelligent design" and pull out information that comes out of them. The information is:
-it's a design, meaning life is result of WORK and not random events,
-it's intelligent, meaning the worker was intelligent and knew what he was doing

please do not go outside these two words, we are talking about these two words only




I never deviated from these two words. We can never verify any design created from intelligence, nor can we ever test it. Hence, it is a result of faith, and not science. I am only talking about life on earth; we can't use life to verify intelligent design, less likely the entire universe.




Let's put it this way.

Let's supose life WAS created by some intelligent creator, and todays it is difficult if not impossible to prove that. What should a scientist do to get to that truth?
Are you suggesting that we either accept evolution, or abandon the question alltogether?
In case the ID idea is true, are you saying that science should give up on it because it seems to hard to prove?

I mean science is about finding answers, if there was an intelligent creator it is the job of science to find him, describe him, explain how he did it, and how was he created and what makes him tick.


--------------------
I descend upon your earth from the skies
I command your very souls you unbelievers
Bring before me what is mine


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: dr0mni]
    #4643402 - 09/10/05 09:45 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

HOW would it be possible to prove that organisms were in fact DESIGNED? Should ID scientists look for organic phenomena that DEFY "random chance/natural laws"?




Thats a start in an interesting direction, but has nothing to do with proving an intelligent designer.

I thought science has found such anamolies and just leaves them as inconclusive? if not, they have written them off to the unpredictability or instability of the quantum field.

I think it is impossible to find it apart from intelligent design itself. I'm not even looking for it in anything but things themselves. Sorry I can't help you here.

Thanks for the discussions your thread privided me with though :cool:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: dr0mni]
    #4643407 - 09/10/05 09:46 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

but IDT refutes evolution because it says things happen by random chance according to natural laws. Whereas IDT suggests that life has come about because of SUPERNATURAL laws.

What you are saying Jiggy, is a perfectly reasonable idea. But it is not the ID that we are talking about here. I see nothing wrong with the idea of god working through evolution as a philosophical idea.

But proponents of IDT say evolution is NOT how things happen at all, so the official position is that these two theories are irreconcilable unless one of them is changed.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineOldWoodSpecter
waiting
Male

Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: dr0mni]
    #4643424 - 09/10/05 09:50 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

dr0mni said:
In biology class we were taught about abiogenesis ("the creation of life without life"). My teacher told us about an experiment that was done were a scientist combined the substances that made up the earth around the time that life was thought to have begun. He subjected this brew to electricity, to simulate lighting, UV radiation, and other such things to replicate pre-life earth.

After a while proteins formed inside the brew. These proteins were observed to come together in long chains, and after they were too long, they would break apart again. These proteins display two characteristics of life. They grew, and then multiplied. Although this is a very simple chemical reaction, and they did not actually multiply in numbers, it provides interesting clues as to how life could have begun out of raw, non-biological materials....




yea we all know about that experiment, but what was created was complex organic molecules, it is miles away from what we could consider as life.
DNA is not just a very big organic molecule, it is a miracle of nature, EACH of the pairs MEANS SOMETHING, it's like a giant biological book, a blueprint. It is a perfect system that even humans that defeat probability and chance everyday with their genious inventions could not thought of.
A random protein chain really carries no information, and is just a molecule.


--------------------
I descend upon your earth from the skies
I command your very souls you unbelievers
Bring before me what is mine


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: dr0mni]
    #4643430 - 09/10/05 09:51 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

so unless someone can come up with a way to test IDT, then we will just have to stick to old fashion, testable evolution and natural selection...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: dr0mni]
    #4643436 - 09/10/05 09:52 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

What makes the testable discovery of a Super natural law evidence of a Creator God?

It just gives evidence to the existance of super natural laws and yet, more intelligent designs to observe, experience and relate ourselves too.


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineOldWoodSpecter
waiting
Male

Registered: 02/01/05
Posts: 4,033
Loc: mountains and lakes
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
Re: How would one go about testing the Intelligent Design Theory? [Re: dr0mni]
    #4643460 - 09/10/05 09:56 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

dr0mni said:
but IDT refutes evolution because it says things happen by random chance according to natural laws. Whereas IDT suggests that life has come about because of SUPERNATURAL laws.

What you are saying Jiggy, is a perfectly reasonable idea. But it is not the ID that we are talking about here. I see nothing wrong with the idea of god working through evolution as a philosophical idea.

But proponents of IDT say evolution is NOT how things happen at all, so the official position is that these two theories are irreconcilable unless one of them is changed.




No, you are twisting this concept into something else.

Universe has laws, the process of creation of life on earth could take place ONLY by FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE.
Supernatural does and can not exist, because if it does exist it becomes natural because everything in existence is an expression of some laws and is natural.

What is supernatural about intelligent design?
Intelligence is not supernatural. Humans are intelligent, a perfect example.
Design is supernatural? Nope, again humans are a perfect example, design is natural, we design things.

both concepts are natural and proven possible: intelligence and design

this computer that I'm typing on is a result of intelligent design, and there is nothing supernatural about it.
It was creaton not by defying natural laws, but by taking advantage of them.

Same way if IDT is to be considered as a serious scientific idea, we MUST assume that the process of ID was a natural process similar to our manufacture of machines, computers, genetic engineering etc.
In other words, ID must have been a very real and natural process made through use of natural laws by an intelligent creator.


--------------------
I descend upon your earth from the skies
I command your very souls you unbelievers
Bring before me what is mine


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Intelligent Design
( 1 2 all )
djd586 3,059 22 12/18/03 05:32 PM
by fireworks_god
* intelligent design or evolution? tak 2,661 18 08/12/04 02:46 AM
by Strumpling
* I want to debate a "creation scientist".
( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all )
Phluck 15,426 232 12/01/04 06:26 PM
by Diploid
* Argument by Design Bullfrog1 1,534 10 12/09/07 09:38 PM
by Holly
* Kaballah and String Theory undecided 1,252 16 01/16/03 12:41 PM
by SnuffelzFurever
* What is intelligence?
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 2,003 32 11/15/03 12:01 AM
by ZenGecko
* A Theory of Psychedelics
( 1 2 3 4 all )
pattern 24,190 66 01/04/20 07:45 PM
by sudly
* Origin of Life
( 1 2 all )
Swami 1,928 28 12/07/02 07:18 PM
by Murex

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
11,268 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2022 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.05 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 19 queries.