Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

This is like trying to go to trial when you have no evidence. How about we wait until we know everything to analyze it? Oh wait, we won't know everything. Looks like we should stop arguing because no one will win.

That's what I said.

L0d3x wrote:That's what I said.

They didn't listen to you, so I helped.

...

...This thread was created to argue the point of teaching ID in school... not to call the Bible a 'Book of fairy tales'...

As I have said before:

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. - 2 Corinthians 4:4

In any case, I would ask that the thread remain on topic, instead of going off on pointless trails bashing others beliefs...

I think we should just burn the schools. BURN IT ALL!!

Civ wrote:I find it insulting when people put Catholics and Christians in a different category. Catholics are Christians.

It's called specificity Civ. When I want to talk about something that the Catholics did in the past, I'm not going to say "Christians," as that typically ends in putting the blame on an entire religion, rather than a single sect.

Also, it seems that whenever I mention the word "Catholic," people freak out and shy away, as if I am accusing them of something. When I say the catholics did something, I'm not saying it because I have some sort of secret hatred for catholics, it's because it was, in fact, the Catholics. People tend to take historical accuracy too personally.

Civ wrote:But it's not fact. Those who believe it happened must believe it through faith.

Civ... I've never asked for proof of anything. I've never asked for something to be classified as "fact." There is absolutely no way to definitively prove anything. I'm quite sure the Romans once existed, but it might be that ancient aliens placed the remnants of their civilization there just to mess with us.

I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for evidence. There's a very big difference between the two. Thing is, we know of no evidence for intelligent design. Creationism, for one, was not written down because some guy spent his life studying the subject. It was written down and then, thousands of years later, people actually started looking for something that would actually back it up.

Any theory can be bent to "fit" in with the information we know today. That is not evidence. The fact that it makes sense that there could have been a god is just about as relevant as the fact that it makes sense that we could be a miniature universe created by an advanced species within their universe.

I'm asking for actual evidence pointing to the belief in a god. So far, all you have suggested is that "planets are round." I gave you the answer to that... it's called gravity.

Civ wrote:So? This has nothing to do with faith. It still is not proven, so you still must believe it.

I never said I believe it, and the only reason I would would be because it is, based on the current knowledge that we have, the most likely way that we came to be. To have faith is to believe something based only on that faith. If someone came around with a revised theory, based on newer evidence, I would be very open to their ideas, and I would likely accept their theory and go with that.

Civ wrote:The church only had this sort of power for two or three hunrded years.

The church had the power to persecute people for their beliefs during the scientific enlightenment, when most of whom we consider "famous scientists" lived.

Civ wrote:Einstein was a Jew.

No, he was born into a Jewish family. I was born into a Christian family... I'm atheist.

Einstein said this:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

So, he believed it was possible that there could be a god, but he did not personally believe there to be one. Whatever his opinions, he was NOT a religious man. He did not concern himself with organized religion.

Civ wrote:Whoopee, you found one scientist that's an atheist. Good work, now what about the other several million?

Ok, and the majority of scientists do not identify themselves with any religious affiliation. I'm not saying that they don't believe that there could be a god, but most are not, as you said, "Religious."

Civ wrote:This thread is not about whether evolution/atheism is a religion, so please just drop it.

AS long as you do not perpetuate the argument in your response, consider it dropped.

L0d3x wrote:That's what I said.

Yeah, we all saw it the first time you posted it. Thing is, this thread was not about bashing each other's religions. It had actually been coming to a very peaceful end before you stepped in with your idiotic post, so shut the fuck up.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:No, atheism is not believing in the supernatural and/or divine.

Atheism means to either not believe in a god, or actively believe that there is no god. End of discussion.

Is that not what I just said? Whatever...

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Who here didn't read about dinosaurs living 500 million years ago when you were five or six?

*Raises hand* I was taught 65 million but... you know... whatever.

Everyone's a critic.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:it's no wonder that most people so readily believe in it and throw away even the possibility of ID.

But... macro evolution does not, in any way, rule out, or even give evidence against Intelligent Design. The only thing it hurts is "literal" creationism.

Well, then, I don't think it should be taught (at least, not to its current extent).

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:This idea seems like a huge stretch to be putting into our education system and when backed with nothing could cause some major fights (something like Columbine).

It is a big stretch, but I'm not afraid of something like columbine happening. I'm afraid of losing security over the progression of human intellectual thinking.

You think that because people have two possibilities on the table that humans will become dumber? Something about that seems flawed... Preventing indoctrination causes people to be dumber...

L0d3x wrote:You guys are wasting your time. The thing is you can't prove either side of the argument, you can just make your view "seem" more believable.

I really wish you'd read what I say...
This thread is not about proving or disproving either side, it's about whether they should be taught in school.

L0d3x wrote:I don't believe in a superbeing that created everything

Big surprise there.

L0d3x wrote:but I also realise that the big bang theory has holes in it.

You're telling me.

L0d3x wrote:However, and this may come as a surprise to some of you, I do believe in afterlife. I would not normallly, but an experience when I was younger basically proved to me that...well there most certainly is at least one form of afterlife.

Hmmm.... interesting.

L0d3x wrote:So like any other religious debate, neither side is correct for the simple reason that nobody knows how the universe really works. I find it very interesting to see what man has created, but in truth we really haven't achieved that much yet. Our understanding of the laws that govern our own planet is alsy very limited, the various "approximate" theories we have thought out clearly illustrate that we have no complete understanding of this. So who are we to reason about stuff beyond our own planet when we don't even understand this yet?

True, but like I said, that's not what this is about. If you look back, you'll probably find a previous religion debate that turned into back-and-forth insults. This time, I put an actual subject on the table instead of just evolution vs creationism.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:It doesn't really add much to anything.

Darwinism happens to be the essential basis for all free interaction. Hell, there is even a term 'Economic Darwinism' which has to do with the free market.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you just said...

KristallNacht wrote:

L0d3x wrote:Didn't feel like reading all the pages...but the Bible is just a fairy tale book that somehow managed to get some blind fools to believe it.

Quite possibly true, but it DOES still teach a good moral foundation. The only real problem with the bible is that people take it as literal and and absolutely truthful.

I'd be one of those loonies

KristallNacht wrote:

L0d3x wrote:Also, every single person who works for the church should be arrested for attempting to brainwash the entire society.

"A religion is just a cult with political power"

Please tell me you're not agreeing with him...

KristallNacht wrote:Douglas Adams has an article in 'The Salmon of Doubt' concerning this. He compares mankinds belief that the world was made for him to a puddle. The puddle fits perfectly in the hole it's in and thus believes the hole was made for it. And as the world is very useless unto itself, its infinately more useful to others.

So seeing as how we need food, and those rocks over there are great for bludgeoning animals to death, those rocks must have been MEANT for us to bludgeon animals to death with them. This can't just be chance, the world MUST have been made for us.

But that was just the seeds. The true establishment of religion was for the purpose of control and containment. But this really isn't a religious argument, even if creationism is a solely religious debate.

Science does run on this theory as well, though. As I pointed out earlier: Why do we think the T-Rex was a carnivore? Because it had lots of sharp teeth. That means the teeth must have been there to chew meat.

KristallNacht wrote:

Vigil wrote:I'm a man of Science, and I need evidence and factual proof to believe anything. That does not mean I'm not closed to the possible existance of God. There are many things we don't understand yet, and as we advance as a species, we will learn more about the world around us and how it works, so it's possible they'll determine it eventually.

Overall though, the Biblical God is pretty much a nonsensical being. I'd sooner believe a Halo-style 'Mantel' process than the Biblical God.

Thanks for that bit of knowledge, but it has nothing to do with the debate.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:
I said this is not a thread about which religion is right (I consider evolution to be a religion).

Then you would have a distorted perception.

Great to know... but once again, not what the thread is about.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:Why stop at the church? Let's just get rid of all peaceable assembly.

Damn PETA!!!!

And Civ, Religion isn't a peaceable assembly by nature.

It's peaceful and it's an assembly. Only if it gets violent do I feel it should be restrained.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:First off, that was Moses, not Jesus. Secondly, "nothing exploded and then came EVERYTHING!" Drop the fight now.

Civ, the true concept of the Big Bang isn't that matter directly exploded into everything from nothing. It's based on a concentration of energy that collected into a few photons and blah blah blah until we have hydrogen which was naturely attracted to other hydrogens because of gravity. These, combined with some of that energy formed stars, in which nuclear fusion turns Hydrogen into the elements up to Iron. Once the Star's core is all Iron, it Novas and in that explosion the other elements were made. So on and so forth.

Where did the energy come from? What about the photons? Energy cannot be created or destroyed and as far as I've been told, neither can matter.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:Nope. That's because God (there is no "they") forever was and forever will be.

And that makes more sense?

It does to me. Some like the color blue, some like red, some like yellow, but does it really matter in the end?

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:And when has religion ever said this is 100% fact with proof that you cannot deny?

Never, because religion never has proof. They just claim 100% fact that you can't deny or you'll go to hell and fear you into believing them. Does the term 'god-fearing' ring a bell?

Religions don't advertise. They only say this to those who already believe. Stop trying to act like people are trying to force religion on you.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:I consider atheism to be a religion, and most atheists are evolutionists. I consider that to be a religion.

Atheism IS accepted as a religion, right along side Satanism (which oddly is an derivitive of the Catholic faith) by pretty much all parties, including the Military.

There you have it.

KristallNacht wrote:Evolutionism isn't based on faith and thus can't be a religion.

Many take it to be true, though it lacks much more substantial proof than that of religion. That would be faith.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:Who here didn't read about dinosaurs living 500 million years ago when you were five or six? As soon as the seventh grade I had nearly an entire semester devoted to the subject. It wasn't until my eight grade science class that it was even mentioned to be a theory and it wasn't until 10th that this was said multiple times throughout the year.

You learn about Dinosaurs in 10th grade? That would explain a lot.

But Dinosaurs aren't evolution at all. Dinosaurs existed. End of story.

But the idea is when they existed.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:As for teaching ID in school, I see where those who are against it come from. Though a common creator doesn't necessarily mean divine, that's typically the case.

Never heard of an ID theory that wasn't divine.

Neither have I. ;)

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:I find it insulting when people put Catholics and Christians in a different category. Catholics are Christians.

I was raised Catholic. They really aren't the same thing.

They are. You're thinking Protestant and Catholic. Christianity has over 300 branches.

Angatar wrote:This is like trying to go to trial when you have no evidence. How about we wait until we know everything to analyze it? Oh wait, we won't know everything. Looks like we should stop arguing because no one will win.

That's not what this thread is about... how many times must I say this?

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:I find it insulting when people put Catholics and Christians in a different category. Catholics are Christians.

It's called specificity Civ. When I want to talk about something that the Catholics did in the past, I'm not going to say "Christians," as that typically ends in putting the blame on an entire religion, rather than a single sect.

Also, it seems that whenever I mention the word "Catholic," people freak out and shy away, as if I am accusing them of something. When I say the catholics did something, I'm not saying it because I have some sort of secret hatred for catholics, it's because it was, in fact, the Catholics. People tend to take historical accuracy too personally.

But 90% of the time that Catholics in specific did something that would be of interest to this subject was before the Reformation, when there was only Catholics. I'd still prefer you don't categorize Catholics in a different area when listing religions.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:But it's not fact. Those who believe it happened must believe it through faith.

Civ... I've never asked for proof of anything. I've never asked for something to be classified as "fact." There is absolutely no way to definitively prove anything. I'm quite sure the Romans once existed, but it might be that ancient aliens placed the remnants of their civilization there just to mess with us.

But to believe evolution is true, you must have faith in it, no?

ReconToaster wrote:I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for evidence.

Then you're going to be hard-pressed to find any substantial evidence for either subject.

But, if you want something, I always found the Grand Canyon to be an interesting subject (though I myself don't know much about it).

ReconToaster wrote:There's a very big difference between the two. Thing is, we know of no evidence for intelligent design. Creationism, for one, was not written down because some guy spent his life studying the subject. It was written down and then, thousands of years later, people actually started looking for something that would actually back it up.

There is some evidence, though. But if you have an idea, you can bend your observations to fit whatever you want. Works for both religion evidence and evolution evidence.

ReconToaster wrote:Any theory can be bent to "fit" in with the information we know today. That is not evidence. The fact that it makes sense that there could have been a god is just about as relevant as the fact that it makes sense that we could be a miniature universe created by an advanced species within their universe.

Seems like we're reading each others minds ^^
I actually didn't read this before I made the comment above.

ReconToaster wrote:I'm asking for actual evidence pointing to the belief in a god. So far, all you have suggested is that "planets are round." I gave you the answer to that... it's called gravity.

Eh, but how did gravity form? If you keep asking how and why, you will get to a point that evolution cannot answer.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:So? This has nothing to do with faith. It still is not proven, so you still must believe it.

I never said I believe it, and the only reason I would would be because it is, based on the current knowledge that we have, the most likely way that we came to be. To have faith is to believe something based only on that faith. If someone came around with a revised theory, based on newer evidence, I would be very open to their ideas, and I would likely accept their theory and go with that.

Religion is more open than you think, hence the Reformation and 300+ branches of Christianity. Everyone essentially has their own version of their primary religion.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:The church only had this sort of power for two or three hunrded years.

The church had the power to persecute people for their beliefs during the scientific enlightenment, when most of whom we consider "famous scientists" lived.

Whoop-dee-doo.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Einstein was a Jew.

No, he was born into a Jewish family. I was born into a Christian family... I'm atheist.

Einstein said this:
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

So, he believed it was possible that there could be a god, but he did not personally believe there to be one. Whatever his opinions, he was NOT a religious man. He did not concern himself with organized religion.

Civ wrote:Whoopee, you found one scientist that's an atheist. Good work, now what about the other several million?

Ok, and the majority of scientists do not identify themselves with any religious affiliation. I'm not saying that they don't believe that there could be a god, but most are not, as you said, "Religious."

Hmmm...

CivBase wrote:

Angatar wrote:This is like trying to go to trial when you have no evidence. How about we wait until we know everything to analyze it? Oh wait, we won't know everything. Looks like we should stop arguing because no one will win.

That's not what this thread is about... how many times must I say this?

Actually it is. To proove one or the other would have it taught in schools, and since you cannot proove each one without knowing everything, you cannot proove it.

Angatar wrote:

CivBase wrote:

Angatar wrote:This is like trying to go to trial when you have no evidence. How about we wait until we know everything to analyze it? Oh wait, we won't know everything. Looks like we should stop arguing because no one will win.

That's not what this thread is about... how many times must I say this?

Actually it is. To proove one or the other would have it taught in schools, and since you cannot proove each one without knowing everything, you cannot proove it.

That's why I'm asking if they should be taught because neither has proof.

That was the original debate, now it seems to be about Science vs Religion

CivBase wrote:I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you just said...

And that is proof you should stay out of this argument.

CivBase wrote:I'd be one of those loonies

Try to stay on topic.

CivBase wrote:Please tell me you're not agreeing with him...

I was merely offering a quote.

CivBase wrote:Science does run on this theory as well, though. As I pointed out earlier: Why do we think the T-Rex was a carnivore? Because it had lots of sharp teeth. That means the teeth must have been there to chew meat.

Hardly. We look at animals in existence today. Carnivores have sharp teeth. Herbivores have flat teeth. Omnivores have sharp teeth in the front and flatter ones in the back.

Furthermore the skeletal structure of the T-Rex suggests it to be a hunter. It's eye sockets are more forward facing than other dinosaurs, a common adaptation for hunters so as to have proper depth perception while gatherers and prey have the eyes more to the sides for the sake of having a wider angle of view to notice predators sooner.

CivBase wrote:It's peaceful and it's an assembly. Only if it gets violent do I feel it should be restrained.

Getting stoned is peaceful, and with friends it's an assembly. My point being that 'peaceful assembly' means diddly-squat.

CivBase wrote:Where did the energy come from? What about the photons? Energy cannot be created or destroyed and as far as I've been told, neither can matter.

The funny thing is that the conservation of matter theory has been broken. Under practically all situations it is true. Under a few that we know of, an infinite amount of matter can be spontaneously created and dissipated. And considering we know a LOT more about matter than we do energy, it wouldn't be hard to imagine such a case with energy as well. Remember, no science is fact.

CivBase wrote:It does to me. Some like the color blue, some like red, some like yellow, but does it really matter in the end?

Explain.

CivBase wrote:Religions don't advertise. They only say this to those who already believe. Stop trying to act like people are trying to force religion on you.

Can't remember the word. But who are those people that go on behalf of a religion to 'immoral' parts of the world preaching their religion?

NTM the catholic church destroyed the concept of limbo purely for the fact that people in southern asia, where infantile death rates are high, weren't joining the religion. A fact that was fun to point out when a catholic priest at my moms church referred to limbo.

CivBase wrote:Many take it to be true, though it lacks much more substantial proof than that of religion. That would be faith.

Please rephrase as that sentence was nonsensical. I'd rather not just assume it means what I think it means and give you the benefit of the doubt.

CivBase wrote:But the idea is when they existed.

Fuck, because you know....time didn't exist until god made crazy shit like platypuses and volkswagens. I'm pretty sure the 7 day thing was blown open. And in terms of divine creation vs evolution, the TIMING of dinosaur existence is not a factor. Only in a biblical creationism is it even an epicly minor problem.

CivBase wrote:They are. You're thinking Protestant and Catholic. Christianity has over 300 branches.

And mormonism is the same thing?

I've been to Catholic churches and Christian churches. Both are very different.


on an unrelated side note, I find it demeaning that in churches they encourage you to bow your head to god. To bow your head is to accept inferiority (another control scheme by churches, ay?) I personally believe that if a god exists, if he is truly worthy of worship, he would accept us as equals, and not inferior individuals.

ReconToaster wrote:

L0d3x wrote:That's what I said.

Yeah, we all saw it the first time you posted it. Thing is, this thread was not about bashing each other's religions. It had actually been coming to a very peaceful end before you stepped in with your idiotic post, so shut the fuck up.

If you had a brain, and could think a bit, you would easily see how my last post was completely relevant to the topic at hand. I will however not attempt to explain it to you, as I doubt you have the capabilities to grasp the concepts in my post.

Civ wrote:Is that not what I just said? Whatever...

No, you said supernatural. It is not impossible for an atheist to believe in ghosts... though it's rather odd.

Civ wrote:ReconToaster wrote:
Civ wrote:
it's no wonder that most people so readily believe in it and throw away even the possibility of ID.


But... macro evolution does not, in any way, rule out, or even give evidence against Intelligent Design. The only thing it hurts is "literal" creationism.

Well, then, I don't think it should be taught (at least, not to its current extent).

wait, so, you think that, because it contradicts the way you want the world to have been created, you don't think it should be taught? That's very open minded of you!

Civ wrote:You think that because people have two possibilities on the table that humans will become dumber? Something about that seems flawed... Preventing indoctrination causes people to be dumber...

I think that we should not be filling the heads of our youth with ideas that have absolutely no evidence pointing towards them. Again civ, the most you've given me is that planets are round...

Civ wrote:I'd be one of those loonies

yeah... we know, and so is my sister

Civ wrote:Where did the energy come from? What about the photons? Energy cannot be created or destroyed and as far as I've been told, neither can matter.

As I have said, conservation of matter as well as the other often cited "laws" of science are said only to govern our Einsteinian Universe. Nobody is saying that it is impossible, under any circumstance, for energy to be created. The rules are put in place to help us progress in the fields of geology and local astronomy. Origin of the Universe requires a much less guided path.

Civ wrote:It does to me. Some like the color blue, some like red, some like yellow, but does it really matter in the end?

No Civ, that analogy says nothing. The fact that you like one theory more than another does not make it any more true. I like the idea of their being an afterlife, and the idea of living on forever and not dispersing into nothingness... but It just doesn't have a whole lot of basis, and thus I must, for now, go with what may be a very unfortunate truth.

Religions don't advertise. They only say this to those who already believe. Stop trying to act like people are trying to force religion on you.

Oh man, I wish I had a way to get pictures on my phone to my computer. I have a picture of a big black bill-board with "JESUS IS REAL" in white lettering that I saw while driving on the highway in Ohio.

You're right though, most religions don't advertise. This is one of the reasons why Christianity is so specifically criticized by Atheists. They are the only one arrogant enough to impose their beliefs on others.

Civ wrote:Many take it to be true, though it lacks much more substantial proof than that of religion. That would be faith.

I'm assuming you mean that it only offers a small amount more evidence than religion, and not that it is more lacking. Your wording is a tad confusing.

But no, it's not faith. I do not absolutely submit myself to the theory of macro evolution. For now, it our best answer as to how we came to be. I'm sure there are other answers out there. I do not have faith in it, I just settle for what is, for now, the best idea we have.

Civ wrote:I'd still prefer you don't categorize Catholics in a different area when listing religions.

The whole idea of the reformation was to separate from the ideals of the Catholic church. I think Lutheran would appreciate the discrepancy.

Civ wrote:But, if you want something, I always found the Grand Canyon to be an interesting subject (though I myself don't know much about it).

We have our own explanation for how the grand canyon formed, and it took a lot more time and thinking to develop than it did for you to say "God did it." You said you don't know much about the topic... well that's obvious.

Civ wrote:There is some evidence, though. But if you have an idea, you can bend your observations to fit whatever you want. Works for both religion evidence and evolution evidence.

In science, you make observations and then apply them to form a theory. With religion, you make up a theory, and then order out the the followers to scavenge for back-up.

Civ wrote:Eh, but how did gravity form? If you keep asking how and why, you will get to a point that evolution cannot answer.

Of course evolution will not explain that, as it is only a theory meant to explain the origin of our species, not the universe.

Either way, gravity was not "formed." Asking how gravity "formed" is like asking how friction came to be. They are not objects, they are effects and reactions.

Civ wrote:Religion is more open than you think, hence the Reformation and 300+ branches of Christianity. Everyone essentially has their own version of their primary religion.

That doesn't say that religions are open minded, that just says that there are multiple close minded belief systems. It doesn't matter WHAT they believe.... they all believe it indefinitely.

Civ wrote:Whoop-dee-doo.

What a brilliant response to my argument. So, I win?

L0d3x wrote:If you had a brain, and could think a bit, you would easily see how my last post was completely relevant to the topic at hand. I will however not attempt to explain it to you, as I doubt you have the capabilities to grasp the concepts in my post.

uh-huh...

Wow if you really can't think that little bit extra to connect my post to the topic then you really must be an idiot or extremely lazy.

Angatar wrote:That was the original debate, now it seems to be about Science vs Religion

I'm still arguing the school thing.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you just said...

And that is proof you should stay out of this argument.

Because you can't word your posts in ways that I can understand? I can understand a lot of bad wording, but that post just lost me.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:It's peaceful and it's an assembly. Only if it gets violent do I feel it should be restrained.

Getting stoned is peaceful, and with friends it's an assembly. My point being that 'peaceful assembly' means diddly-squat.

-_-
There's two ways that I can take the stoned thing. One is violent, the other is rather... sickening, but still has no reason to be outlawed. Do you think it should be outlawed, NT?

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:Where did the energy come from? What about the photons? Energy cannot be created or destroyed and as far as I've been told, neither can matter.

The funny thing is that the conservation of matter theory has been broken. Under practically all situations it is true. Under a few that we know of, an infinite amount of matter can be spontaneously created and dissipated. And considering we know a LOT more about matter than we do energy, it wouldn't be hard to imagine such a case with energy as well. Remember, no science is fact.

It's true, no science is fact. But science also goes off of evidence, no? So I want evidence that the energy could have been created and turned into matter (without a partial collider)

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:It does to me. Some like the color blue, some like red, some like yellow, but does it really matter in the end?

Explain.

What idea you like more doesn't matter. You think it's dumb that I am a Christian, I think it's dumb that you subscribe to the theory of evolution. But does it matter? The argument is fruitless, so just drop the "your idea is just stupid" idea and get with the program. You guys are trying to get evolution above religion, I'm only trying to make them equal.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:Religions don't advertise. They only say this to those who already believe. Stop trying to act like people are trying to force religion on you.

Can't remember the word. But who are those people that go on behalf of a religion to 'immoral' parts of the world preaching their religion?

Missionaries? That rarely happens. And why should it matter? They're not forcing it on those people, they're just giving them an idea that they can take if they want.

KristallNacht wrote:NTM the catholic church destroyed the concept of limbo purely for the fact that people in southern asia, where infantile death rates are high, weren't joining the religion. A fact that was fun to point out when a catholic priest at my moms church referred to limbo.

That's a great fact, but entirely irrelevant.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:Many take it to be true, though it lacks much more substantial proof than that of religion. That would be faith.

Please rephrase as that sentence was nonsensical. I'd rather not just assume it means what I think it means and give you the benefit of the doubt.

What I'm saying is that evolution lacks the evidence it needs to become a scientific law or fact or whatever you want to call it. It has nothing to really support it what with all the missing links and lack of big bang recurrences. The entire theory was developed by a kid who knew almost nothing about science. It's interesting and could be true, but there's a great chance that it's not true. It has no substantial backing; so, in the end, the only way to accept it is to have faith in it. I have no problem with that, but it is still faith.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:They are. You're thinking Protestant and Catholic. Christianity has over 300 branches.

And mormonism is the same thing?

Yup. Mormons are Christians, but most Christians are not Mormons. Besides, most of the... not-so-loved practices were dissolved (because religion can change).

KristallNacht wrote:I've been to Catholic churches and Christian churches. Both are very different.

No, you've been to Catholic and Protestant churches. but Catholics are still Christians.

KristallNacht wrote:on an unrelated side note, I find it demeaning that in churches they encourage you to bow your head to god. To bow your head is to accept inferiority (another control scheme by churches, ay?) I personally believe that if a god exists, if he is truly worthy of worship, he would accept us as equals, and not inferior individuals.

That's great for you to believe, but the only people that go to churches go there voluntarily. If you find it demeaning, don't go to churches or just don't bow. My church certainly wouldn't have a problem with that.

L0d3x wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

L0d3x wrote:That's what I said.

Yeah, we all saw it the first time you posted it. Thing is, this thread was not about bashing each other's religions. It had actually been coming to a very peaceful end before you stepped in with your idiotic post, so shut the fuck up.

If you had a brain, and could think a bit, you would easily see how my last post was completely relevant to the topic at hand. I will however not attempt to explain it to you, as I doubt you have the capabilities to grasp the concepts in my post.

Be nice. Yelling will only make you look stupid in the end.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Is that not what I just said? Whatever...

No, you said supernatural. It is not impossible for an atheist to believe in ghosts... though it's rather odd.

Alright then. Gods it is.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Well, then, I don't think it should be taught (at least, not to its current extent).

wait, so, you think that, because it contradicts the way you want the world to have been created, you don't think it should be taught? That's very open minded of you!

Yes. You think the same thing, no?

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:You think that because people have two possibilities on the table that humans will become dumber? Something about that seems flawed... Preventing indoctrination causes people to be dumber...

I think that we should not be filling the heads of our youth with ideas that have absolutely no evidence pointing towards them. Again civ, the most you've given me is that planets are round...

And I don't think that we should be spending nearly 2 years worth of science classes talking about a theory.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Where did the energy come from? What about the photons? Energy cannot be created or destroyed and as far as I've been told, neither can matter.

As I have said, conservation of matter as well as the other often cited "laws" of science are said only to govern our Einsteinian Universe. Nobody is saying that it is impossible, under any circumstance, for energy to be created. The rules are put in place to help us progress in the fields of geology and local astronomy. Origin of the Universe requires a much less guided path.

Rules to be put in place to help us progress? And here you are yelling at churches for putting the idea of God in scientists heads.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:It does to me. Some like the color blue, some like red, some like yellow, but does it really matter in the end?

No Civ, that analogy says nothing.

They hear, but not listen...

ReconToaster wrote:The fact that you like one theory more than another does not make it any more true.

I claim no such thing. In fact, that's one thing that I'm trying to tell you.

ReconToaster wrote:I like the idea of their being an afterlife, and the idea of living on forever and not dispersing into nothingness... but It just doesn't have a whole lot of basis, and thus I must, for now, go with what may be a very unfortunate truth.

Not truth. Idea, possibility, guess, but certainly not truth; not yet, at least.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Religions don't advertise. They only say this to those who already believe. Stop trying to act like people are trying to force religion on you.

Oh man, I wish I had a way to get pictures on my phone to my computer. I have a picture of a big black bill-board with "JESUS IS REAL" in white lettering that I saw while driving on the highway in Ohio.

Well then, we are on equal ground. But at least JESUS IS REAL isn't found in our science text books.

ReconToaster wrote:You're right though, most religions don't advertise. This is one of the reasons why Christianity is so specifically criticized by Atheists. They are the only one arrogant enough to impose their beliefs on others.

Arrogant? Imposing beliefs? WTF do you call Jihad, then? Toast?

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Many take it to be true, though it lacks much more substantial proof than that of religion. That would be faith.

I'm assuming you mean that it only offers a small amount more evidence than religion, and not that it is more lacking. Your wording is a tad confusing.

It lacks much more, it doesn't have very much more of; how is that confusing?

ReconToaster wrote:But no, it's not faith. I do not absolutely submit myself to the theory of macro evolution. For now, it our best answer as to how we came to be. I'm sure there are other answers out there. I do not have faith in it, I just settle for what is, for now, the best idea we have.

Alright then. But it doesn't matter... this all started because someone criticized my use of words.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:I'd still prefer you don't categorize Catholics in a different area when listing religions.

The whole idea of the reformation was to separate from the ideals of the Catholic church. I think Lutheran would appreciate the discrepancy.

I'm good friends with many Protestants. Honestly, they don't give a rats-@$$. And if you're separating them, then don't say Christian, say Protestant.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:But, if you want something, I always found the Grand Canyon to be an interesting subject (though I myself don't know much about it).

We have our own explanation for how the grand canyon formed, and it took a lot more time and thinking to develop than it did for you to say "God did it." You said you don't know much about the topic... well that's obvious.

God did it... yup. Actually, my theory has more to do with Noah's flood than the formation of the Earth. The flood could have just washed out a large deposit of loose gravel, my theory is drainage. And I don't care if you think something like that is a stupid idea, it doesn't change anything.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:There is some evidence, though. But if you have an idea, you can bend your observations to fit whatever you want. Works for both religion evidence and evolution evidence.

In science, you make observations and then apply them to form a theory. With religion, you make up a theory, and then order out the the followers to scavenge for back-up.

My religion doesn't order anyone to do anything, it's all voluntary. My religion also doesn't make up theories, it follows older ones, far too old to know if they had anything to do with observations or fantasy. And yet again, no addition to the current debate, you're just looking for ways to attack my religion so you can justify your own decision when faced with the possibility that you were wrong.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Eh, but how did gravity form? If you keep asking how and why, you will get to a point that evolution cannot answer.

Of course evolution will not explain that, as it is only a theory meant to explain the origin of our species, not the universe.

It has evolved to include the origin and evolution of the universe. And either way, I still don't think it should be taught so much in school (especially as a required thing to be taught).

ReconToaster wrote:Either way, gravity was not "formed." Asking how gravity "formed" is like asking how friction came to be. They are not objects, they are effects and reactions.

Laws have to be formed. With science, nothing can be forever.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Religion is more open than you think, hence the Reformation and 300+ branches of Christianity. Everyone essentially has their own version of their primary religion.

That doesn't say that religions are open minded, that just says that there are multiple close minded belief systems. It doesn't matter WHAT they believe.... they all believe it indefinitely.

Not as much as you may think. NT was raised religious, but does he still believe that?

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Whoop-dee-doo.

What a brilliant response to my argument. So, I win?

If it helps you sleep better at night. Even though both of your scientists came around within the past century... out of several dozen.

"Yelling will only make you look stupid in the end"

Eh, to me all you kids look stupid, this forum really was a letdown.
Look at the size of these posts...you guys should be politicians or something.

Anyways, don't expect me back here any time soon, so if you feel the need to bash on me for whatever reason just know that I probably will never read it.

I'll read through this and start work on a post eventually...but the conversation got a bit fast too fast paced for me. Needless to say, at least Recon and I agree on the subject of the thread, which is progress.

L0d3x wrote:"Yelling will only make you look stupid in the end"

Eh, to me all you kids look stupid, this forum really was a letdown.
Look at the size of these posts...you guys should be politicians or something.

Anyways, don't expect me back here any time soon, so if you feel the need to bash on me for whatever reason just know that I probably will never read it.

Aww man...

Civ wrote:Yes. You think the same thing, no?

No! I don't think that ID shouldn't be taught in schools for the sake of it contradicting my beliefs. If a better theory came along that completely trashed evolution, I'd jump right into it. I have a problem with a theory with even less evidential backing being implemented in our public schools.

Civ wrote:And I don't think that we should be spending nearly 2 years worth of science classes talking about a theory.

No, I think a quarter is sufficient.

Civ wrote:Rules to be put in place to help us progress? And here you are yelling at churches for putting the idea of God in scientists heads.

The idea of there being a god does nothing to help guide scientists to answer other questions about the planet and galaxy in which we live. It only gives them an excuse to give up the search and bow their heads in prayer.

What I am saying is that the "laws" are only meant to govern the known, Einsteinian Universe. I do not doubt that there are other places amongst the Cosmos where they can be bent and broken.

Civ wrote:Not truth. Idea, possibility, guess, but certainly not truth; not yet, at least.

To clarify, I was not citing evolution as "what might be an unfortunate truth," I was citing atheism, which I realize is not relevant. I was just trying to offer an analogy to understand that even the most wonderful of ideas should not be accept on such a basis.

Civ wrote:at least JESUS IS REAL isn't found in our science text books.

I know... that would be awful, right?

Civ wrote:Arrogant? Imposing beliefs? WTF do you call Jihad, then? Toast?

Ok, fine, the jihad is bad too. Happy?

Civ wrote: It lacks much more, it doesn't have very much more of; how is that confusing?

Didn't mean to upset you... I was only clarifying that you weren't saying that the evidence behind evolution was more lacking than that of ID. Your wording was a bit odd, that's all.

Civ wrote:The flood could have just washed out a large deposit of loose gravel,

Or, ya know, it could have been the Colorado river... but whatever.

Civ wrote:you're just looking for ways to attack my religion so you can justify your own decision when faced with the possibility that you were wrong.

Not really, I'm just pointing out that while scientists make observations and THEN develop a hypothesis, religions tend to make something up, and THEN look for things that fit with what they believe.

Civ wrote: Laws have to be formed. With science, nothing can be forever.

Civ, gravity was not "formed." It is not an object. Objects of mass attract each other. That's all it is.

Civ wrote:Not as much as you may think. NT was raised religious, but does he still believe that?

Ok, and I was raised Presbyterian. I'm not saying that every religious person is closed minded, I'm saying that religious institutions themselves are closed minded.

L0d3x wrote:Eh, to me all you kids look stupid, you guys should be politicians or something.

uh huh...

Hmm I think I owe you guys an apology.

I guess my pride took over my (great) ability to use logical reasoning, so I resorted to putting you guys down. Eh don't ask why, long story...

The important thing is that, I like chicken, and in liking such, my ability to be polite and sensical has been restored.

Cheers

L0d3x wrote:Hmm I think I owe you guys an apology.

You're damn right you do!
(wait, what did he do?)

L0d3x wrote:
I guess my pride took over my (great) ability to use logical reasoning, so I resorted to putting you guys down. Eh don't ask why, long story...

No, that doesn't sound pompus at all

L0d3x wrote:
The important thing is that, I like chicken, and in liking such, my ability to be polite and sensical has been restored.

Cheers

Chicken?
I instantly forgive you.