Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

Pie wrote:Chicken?
I instantly forgive you.

Seconded

ReconToaster wrote:

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.

So it's based upon what you think is a better theory then?

ReconToaster wrote:

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.

Well, most schools that I've seen get WAY more than a quarter. And even that is a huge amount for a theory. While some background into the theory could be presented, I don't think it should have it's own half of the text book like in my middle school years, and even when I was a freshman (bio).

ReconToaster wrote:

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.

Couldn't they look into the idea though? Try to find out how it happened, how it worked?
Rules should not be put in place to guide science, rules restrain. A rule like "the sun orbits around the Earth" or "heavier objects fall faster" is an example that should not be followed.

ReconToaster wrote: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.

But we don't know that all of these rules are true, so why should we follow them? This is the same premise of religion. You have no idea of whether God is real or not, so why follow him? We have not seen energy be created, but we have not seen anything that proves God doesn't exist either.

ReconToaster wrote:

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

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

Yes it would

...in America. ^^

ReconToaster wrote:

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

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

And it doesn't stop with the Muslims.

ReconToaster wrote:

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

Didn't mean to upset you...

Not upset, just a little surprised that neither of you could understand that.

ReconToaster wrote:

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.

Last time I checked, rivers don't flow north. The only real exception to this is a few entire rivers flow north, but not parts. Creationists commonly look at this more like a drainage than a natural river.

ReconToaster wrote:

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.

True, but they don't order people to waste their lives looking for these things, like you said.

ReconToaster wrote:

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.

And how was this law created? It is a rule of our universe, it must have been formed somehow. Like I said, nothing can forever be in science.

ReconToaster wrote:

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.

True.

ReconToaster wrote:

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

uh huh...

I doubt I would be a very good politician. I don't research. ;)

CivBase wrote:
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.

this is the content in question:

kristall wrote: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.

If you don't understand that, it's not because I'm wording it poorly, it's because you don't KNOW any of it.

Let's break it down:

kristall wrote:Darwinism

In a nutshell: "survival of the fittest"

kristall wrote:happens to be

in lay-man's terms: "is"

kristall wrote:the essential basis

synonymous with: "the foundation"

kristall wrote:for all

read as: "for all"

kristall wrote:free interaction.

as to mean "interactions not bound by a specific set of rules to the situation" but that's longer.

kristall wrote:Hell, there is even a term

"there is a term"

kristall wrote:'Economic Darwinism'

http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=economic+darwinism

kristall wrote:which has to do with

"which has to do with"

kristall wrote:the free market

"an economic strategy akin to capitalism" but that's longer.

kristall wrote: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.

"survival of the fittest is the foundation for all free interaction. There is a term 'Economic Darwinism' which has to do with the free market."

I would reply to the rest of your comments. But this instance of complete stupidity leaves me with no such will as to continue to converse with someone such as yourself.

Right...
That's what I thought you said. But then I thought, no... that can't be, it has nothing to do with teaching evolution in school. If not having survival of the fittest is a problem for other classes, they can teach the concept themselves, not rely on another class to do it for them. It's an extremely easy idea to understand.

I thought we'd agreed that micro evolution, aka natural selection, aka survival of the fittest was ok for school?

ReconToaster 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.

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.

Listen, I don't really see what's wrong with going into poor, underdeveloped areas of the world, building hospitals, clearing minefields, and saying "This is what we believe in. He is a God of love. You don't have to believe in him, but if you want to know more, just ask.

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

Well, actually, we like to say that it was the Catholic-Political complex that did that stuff. At least I do. Say it was the Catholic-Political complex that authorized the genocidal crusades. Say it was the Catholic-Political complex that initiated the Spanish Inquisition.

Religious control of Government, you see, is a real danger. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and people will corrupt both Politics and Religion for power and personal gain, or to satisfy personal prejudices.
This is not to say that government should be completely free of religion. The power should be derived from the people, not from a dictator, or a pope, or a demagogue.

Of course, you caught me in my bipolar conservative-libertarian side.

As for the Catholic Church persecuting scientists, go look up what the Nazis did to people like Einstein.
Look at the Soviet Union. Lamarckism, Lysenkoism, and what happened to Nikolai Vavilov.

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.

Am I the only one who thought that your bashing of L0dx was over the top?

L0d3x wrote: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

Alles gut, alles gut.

ReconToaster wrote:

Pie wrote:Chicken?
I instantly forgive you.

Seconded

Thirded. Especially with gravy.

CivBase wrote:Right...
That's what I thought you said. But then I thought, no... that can't be, it has nothing to do with teaching evolution in school. If not having survival of the fittest is a problem for other classes, they can teach the concept themselves, not rely on another class to do it for them. It's an extremely easy idea to understand.

you need to pay attention to context. You said teaching darwinism is completely useless outside of biology. I counterred. You treated my counter as a new line of thought.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I thought we'd agreed that micro evolution, aka natural selection, aka survival of the fittest was ok for school?

Very good point. That solves that, no?

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:


Listen, I don't really see what's wrong with going into poor, underdeveloped areas of the world, building hospitals, clearing minefields, and saying "This is what we believe in. He is a God of love. You don't have to believe in him, but if you want to know more, just ask.

Indeed ^^

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Well, actually, we like to say that it was the Catholic-Political complex that did that stuff. At least I do. Say it was the Catholic-Political complex that authorized the genocidal crusades. Say it was the Catholic-Political complex that initiated the Spanish Inquisition.

Hmmm...

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Religious control of Government, you see, is a real danger. Absolute power corrupts absolutely,

w00t Orwell!

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:and people will corrupt both Politics and Religion for power and personal gain, or to satisfy personal prejudices.

True

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:This is not to say that government should be completely free of religion. The power should be derived from the people, not from a dictator, or a pope, or a demagogue.

Agreed

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:As for the Catholic Church persecuting scientists, go look up what the Nazis did to people like Einstein.
Look at the Soviet Union. Lamarckism, Lysenkoism, and what happened to Nikolai Vavilov.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Am I the only one who thought that your bashing of L0dx was over the top?

Yes. I don't like it when a person comes in, and insults my beliefs with no regard for what the debate is even about.

I think I solved this problem.




so yeah....

erm... what?

4chan roll'd for god, satan, and the end of the world. ALL came up right

I successfully ended this thread.

+1 for NT

I have to agree with Rot...
Briefly introduced.
Teachers should be biased as well. I've known teachers who were disgusted by the idea of Darwinism. Even though I am a Muslim. I don't like when she was so against the idea.

i am goin to state my opinion briefly
i see many holes in evolution
i see many proofs for evolution
none of which for or against have completely swayed me either way

i do believe in Jesus Christ
i do believe (at this point thats what i was insinuating earlier) in plain intelligent design though that may change
i see no problem why both of these _theories_ cannot be taught in school
but i do see a problem with saying either way that one way or the other is absolutely certain

from everything i have seen there is not a enough proof if you want to criticize im getting off for now may be on later
see ya

Well you can't not believe in Jesus, he existed so its a bit hard to deny his existence.

x Gauz x wrote:Well you can't not believe in Jesus, he existed so its a bit hard to deny his existence.

You'd think... yet there are people out there who can confidently deny the moon landing, 9-11, and even the holocaust. It's sad...

9-11 can't be denied that it happened, only what actually caused it.

CivBase wrote:

x Gauz x wrote:Well you can't not believe in Jesus, he existed so its a bit hard to deny his existence.

You'd think... yet there are people out there who can confidently deny the moon landing, 9-11, and even the holocaust. It's sad...

The sad thing is Civ, while there is no real evidence for his existence, it seems that even most atheists claim he once lived. His false existence has been embedded into our society by people like you, people who claim truth with no reason.

These is no historical evidence, outside of the Bible, of Christ ever existing. You complain that Evolution is taught as fact, I am bothered by the existence of a man named Jesus Christ being taught as fact.

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=IEJFTZP6

technically speaking there is no evidance that proves 100% that any of us currently in this chat room actually exsist

ReconToaster wrote:These is no historical evidence, outside of the Bible, of Christ ever existing.

I don't know if that's true (i don't)
but

i do know that the bible is a really historically accurate document.

KrAzY wrote:technically speaking there is no evidance that proves 100% that any of us currently in this chat room actually exsist

I did not say proof Krazy, I asked for submittable evidence. There's quite a bit of evidence that we are on a message board.

Can you tell me why you think Jesus ever existed?

I'm sick of this. You can't even keep your @$$ on topic recon. I'm not starting a debate about weather Jesus existed, but WTF does it matter? Arguing that there's no proof that Jesus existed does not mean that he couldn't have existed. You are not adding anything to the discussion

You are bent on trying to destroy my beliefs. Get a life!

This debate is not or ever was a question upon weather Christianity is true or whether evolution is true, but you keep trying to steer it to that.

Look at the world around you. Where did it come from? This cannot be answered by evolution. It cannot be answered by science. So what is so wrong with believing that there is a God?

If it really eats you up so much that other people actually think differently from you, then you need to go see a therapist.

Let this debate die already!

KristallNacht wrote:9-11 can't be denied that it happened, only what actually caused it.

The moon landing and the Holocaust can be denied. Not effectively, and you're going to have to ignore a lot of evidence, but they can be denied.

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:

x Gauz x wrote:Well you can't not believe in Jesus, he existed so its a bit hard to deny his existence.

You'd think... yet there are people out there who can confidently deny the moon landing, 9-11, and even the holocaust. It's sad...

The sad thing is Civ, while there is no real evidence for his existence, it seems that even most atheists claim he once lived. His false existence has been embedded into our society by people like you, people who claim truth with no reason.

These is no historical evidence, outside of the Bible, of Christ ever existing. You complain that Evolution is taught as fact, I am bothered by the existence of a man named Jesus Christ being taught as fact.

Well, first of all, a good many records that didn't make it into the bible agree that Jesus existed, although some dispute the fact that he was divine and/or human. Plus, the Jews kept exact records of their ancestral lines, so we can conclude that someone named Jesus existed from genealogies and files on the early Christians.

But honestly, I find the idea of somebody like Genghis Khan improbable. One person really conquered half the known world? Sounds more to me like it was several warlords who did the job, each using Khan as a name. Kinda like Dread Pirate Roberts?

Next, we have this nonsense about William Wallace and Christopher Columbus. We don't even know where that last bugger was born, much less buried.
CAN'T YOU SEE IT'S ALL A FILTHY GOVERNMENT LIE!? WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
[/sarcasm]

ReconToaster wrote:

KrAzY wrote:technically speaking there is no evidance that proves 100% that any of us currently in this chat room actually exsist

I did not say proof Krazy, I asked for submittable evidence. There's quite a bit of evidence that we are on a message board.

Can you tell me why you think Jesus ever existed?

me?

I think he may have been a person... statistically there is a high chance that there was a person named jesus who has died at some point in the past


do I think he was the son of a god? no.


I was merely stating the fact that there is a chance that none of us exsist... actually I am fairly certain that I do not exsist

Besides, Recon, you and I already debated the credibility of arguing whether Jesus existed. He is referenced in enough historical documents that we can accept that he did exist. Whether he was the Son of God or even if he performed miracles, we cannot determine for sure, but the man existed. I could argue that we can't prove that virtually any historical figure existed. Napoleon was just a lie, guys. There was no general. The French army just marched over all of Europe without any leader, a giant conspiracy I tell you. Do you see just how ridiculous that sounds? The Bible is not the only source citing Jesus as having existed in that time and place, and even then, the Bible is accepted by historians as being historically accurate on the same level the epics by Homer and the Nordic Sagas are.