Inteligent Design & Darwinism in Schools

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.

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

I mean..."the water went aside so little Jesus could go through the sea"??
Come on...

And to everyone who believes creationism...if that is true than something else must have created these beings eh? There is no way in hell that they just were "magically" there.

Aside from my views, there are still too many unknowns in this universe to be sure about anything. But I doubt that some super being made it all. People just believe that stuff because they're afraid of death.

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.

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

I mean..."the water went aside so little Jesus could go through the sea"??
Come on...

And to everyone who believes creationism...if that is true than something else must have created these beings eh? There is no way in hell that they just were "magically" there.

Aside from my views, there are still too many unknowns in this universe to be sure about anything. But I doubt that some super being made it all. People just believe that stuff because they're afraid of death.

I see as one of the first novels, telling a intersting story and trying to help people at the time with their lives. It still has some good principles, but you can't follow everything in a 2000 year old book. Times have changed dramatically since then, not to mention people all have different takes on what the words say, which cause the main issues with religion as a concept.

They just believe it is true, despite no evidence to support it.

That was Moses.

Science blew that theory out of the water. 7 days? More like 7 billion years.

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.

Cavalry has arrived!

You know, I think there should have been a poll for this.

I'll make one.

Okay, LP, if you could, just merge this poll with the thread.

The Irony is there's a series of programmes about Darwin over here.

They were punching holes in his theory large enough to sink a battleship.

He had the right idea, it just wasn't just quite there yet. Other scientist had to look at it, and refine and correct the original theory.

I still tihnk microevolution should be taught in schools, just the way I was taught. and that can be taught as near fact (with overall teaching of how all science is theory)

Of course it should be taught as theory, it IS a theory and there is no proof so we can not teach it as fact.

That's what makes scientist better in my opinion, admitting they aren't 100% sure but can actually explain their ideas without saying "Just trust me on this"

They both were made by scientists pheonix...

bahahahaha

LP wrote:bahahahaha

Oh man, that's funny

ah gosh


*Pheonix wipes a tear from his eye*



funny....

I am Agnostic.... I will believe in a god if I get proof


I don't think thats gonna happen




if you do some research you would find that scientists have been able to create RNA using simple chemical reactions that would have taken place while the world was forming... these tests involve a lot of toxins that would have been found in volcanoes, a lot of water, and a lot of electricity.

The RNA over time changes to survive better in its environment



RNA however is Pre-life... as RNA itself is not alive... it is lifelike but it is not life. they think that given enough time and favorable conditions the RNA will combine with enough random materials (this adding of extra materials to their "genetics" (the RNA is basically just a molecule from a chemical reaction that reproduces on its own) is expected to mutate into actual DNA somewhere in the next 1 - 20 years... which would be life from nothing


it might happen... it might not.... theres a lot of stuff online and in books explaining the experiment (which has been going on for like 30 years)

i'm not saying thats exactly how it happened... but IMO it is the most likely explanation

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.

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

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

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

L0d3x wrote:I mean..."the water went aside so little Jesus could go through the sea"??
Come on...

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

L0d3x wrote:And to everyone who believes creationism...if that is true than something else must have created these beings eh? There is no way in hell that they just were "magically" there.

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

L0d3x wrote:Aside from my views, there are still too many unknowns in this universe to be sure about anything. But I doubt that some super being made it all. People just believe that stuff because they're afraid of death.

That's great, but I really don't care. Maybe people are just afraid of death, but you don't can't prove that.


Normally I find you have good points L0d3x, but this disappointed me.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Of course it should be taught as theory, it IS a theory and there is no proof so we can not teach it as fact.

That's what makes scientist better in my opinion, admitting they aren't 100% sure but can actually explain their ideas without saying "Just trust me on this"

That's great. But what is a scientist better than LP? Most scientists in history were religious. And when has religion ever said this is 100% fact with proof that you cannot deny? Religion runs by faith, which is why it's religion.


*brings the thread back on track*
I voted neither. And without even reading, I'm guessing it was LP that made the poll. Why? Because he didn't put ID as a theory and as fact.

I didn't make the thread as I don't give a shit




and you continualy fail to even make a real contribution and only either

a. insult

b. get facts wrong

c. let smarter members do the talking for you





you consider evolution a religion?

are you serious?

Okay

When have I insulted in this thread?
Yah, B and C are pretty well true.

Sorta. I consider atheism to be a religion, and most atheists are evolutionists. I consider that to be a religion. Probably should have worded that one better...

Atheism is being WITHOUT a religion, you can't just go and classify it as a religion.


What if I go and start calling Christianity a Cult as most cultists are religious?







And you said you "expected more out of lod3x" when all he did was state his own personal beliefs therefor insulting him.

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.

That's funny, because for a book of "fair tales", it has quite a bit of historical accuracy. Supernatural events aside, it is treated as factual.

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

Because obviously every single member of every single church is brainwashed. But teachers telling children in school that macro evolution is fact and the only possibility for Earth's history, that's not brainwashing at all.

L0d3x wrote:I mean..."the water went aside so little Jesus could go through the sea"??
Come on...

Ah, I see you are very educated in the thing you are criticizing. You are clearly an expert. Aren't you science types normally supposed to research both sides before making claims about either?

L0d3x wrote:And to everyone who believes creationism...if that is true than something else must have created these beings eh? There is no way in hell that they just were "magically" there.

The very nature of supernatural is that it isn't natural, that it exceeds our current understanding. And, since you were too lazy to read any of the rest of, oh dear God, four pages (you poor baby), then you probably didn't read the part where the purely scientific approach to the big bang also requires for something to have simply magically existed since before time. For the big bang to make sense, since the beginning of time, billions upon trillions of universes must have simply always been, and the strings which connect them must have just vibrated, all on their own. So before you accuse creationism of not making sense since it assumes something has always been, look in the mirror, because all approaches to the beginning of the universe, religious or otherwise, do.

L0d3x wrote:Aside from my views, there are still too many unknowns in this universe to be sure about anything. But I doubt that some super being made it all. People just believe that stuff because they're afraid of death.

Never thought I'd see someone as bad at debating as Pie...

Vigil wrote:I see as one of the first novels, telling a intersting story and trying to help people at the time with their lives. It still has some good principles, but you can't follow everything in a 2000 year old book. Times have changed dramatically since then, not to mention people all have different takes on what the words say, which cause the main issues with religion as a concept.

But most organized religions that read out of the Bible tend to disagree on the little issues. Catholics decided to add a whole bunch of stuff, and Mormonism is kind of like a joke of a religion, but most of the Protestant faiths all agree on the core aspects of the Bible.

Vigil wrote:They just believe it is true, despite no evidence to support it.

There isn't necessarily no evidence, though I will admit that there is a decent number of Protestants who don't bother to look into the evidences. The one thing we obviously can't conclusively prove is that there is or isn't a God.

Vigil wrote:That was Moses.

I'm glad someone who doesn't necessarily believe in the Bible at least knows the most basic of stories.

Vigil wrote:Science blew that theory out of the water. 7 days? More like 7 billion years.

Since I'd rather not repeat this entire argument again, I entreat you, Vigil, to read through my posts, namely where I quote and respond to Recon.

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.

Fair enough.

ReconToaster wrote:Cavalry has arrived!

Cavalry? L0d3x is a stubborn twit who doesn't know what he's talking about, and so that just means one person has arrived. Now, if Vigil will read through the thread (it isn't that long) and get himself up to date with the debate so far, we can continue.

PiEman wrote:You know, I think there should have been a poll for this.

I'll make one.

So was it you that made that poll up there? Because I'm pretty sure no one here is arguing that macro evolution not be taught at all in schools and creationism/intelligent design be exclusively taught.

PiEman wrote:Okay, LP, if you could, just merge this poll with the thread.

So it was you. No surprise, I guess.

Vigil wrote:The Irony is there's a series of programmes about Darwin over here.

They were punching holes in his theory large enough to sink a battleship.

He had the right idea, it just wasn't just quite there yet. Other scientist had to look at it, and refine and correct the original theory.

Ya, the poll should probably refer to it as macro evolution rather than darwinism.

KristallNacht wrote:I still tihnk microevolution should be taught in schools, just the way I was taught. and that can be taught as near fact (with overall teaching of how all science is theory)

If we still agree that micro evolution is synonymous with natural selection, then I agree with you one hundred percent.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Of course it should be taught as theory, it IS a theory and there is no proof so we can not teach it as fact.

That's what makes scientist better in my opinion, admitting they aren't 100% sure but can actually explain their ideas without saying "Just trust me on this"

Well, to some degree, I guess.

KrAzY wrote:I am Agnostic.... I will believe in a god if I get proof


I don't think thats gonna happen

Probably not.

KrAzY wrote:if you do some research you would find that scientists have been able to create RNA using simple chemical reactions that would have taken place while the world was forming... these tests involve a lot of toxins that would have been found in volcanoes, a lot of water, and a lot of electricity.

The RNA over time changes to survive better in its environment



RNA however is Pre-life... as RNA itself is not alive... it is lifelike but it is not life. they think that given enough time and favorable conditions the RNA will combine with enough random materials (this adding of extra materials to their "genetics" (the RNA is basically just a molecule from a chemical reaction that reproduces on its own) is expected to mutate into actual DNA somewhere in the next 1 - 20 years... which would be life from nothing


it might happen... it might not.... theres a lot of stuff online and in books explaining the experiment (which has been going on for like 30 years)

i'm not saying thats exactly how it happened... but IMO it is the most likely explanation

I've heard about these tests, and I certainly do find it intriguing.

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

I don't know about religion, but there is some faith going into macro evolution, since it hasn't been definitively proven. However, the point stands. This thread is for whether or not creationism has enough merits as compared to macro evolutionism to be mentioned in the classroom alongside macro evolutionism.

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

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

Indeed. Poor l0d3x never stood a chance.

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

Exactly.

CivBase wrote:That's great, but I really don't care. Maybe people are just afraid of death, but you don't can't prove that.


Normally I find you have good points L0d3x, but this disappointed me.

L0d3x normally has good points? The few times I've seen him debate, he hasn't done much but whine and complain in ignorance.

CivBase wrote:That's great. But what is a scientist better than LP? Most scientists in history were religious. And when has religion ever said this is 100% fact with proof that you cannot deny? Religion runs by faith, which is why it's religion.

Well, the Catholic church did go around smacking some heads a while back, but that's the idea, ya.

CivBase wrote:*brings the thread back on track*
I voted neither. And without even reading, I'm guessing it was LP that made the poll. Why? Because he didn't put ID as a theory and as fact.

Pie made it, I think. You can also note that there is nothing in the poll where both are taught, which is strange, since that is the main other side. Exclusive vs inclusive. I don't think anyone is arguing about whether or not macro evolution has a place in the classroom.

Lord Pheonix wrote:I didn't make the thread as I don't give a shit




and you continualy fail to even make a real contribution and only either

a. insult

b. get facts wrong

c. let smarter members do the talking for you





you consider evolution a religion?

are you serious?

Now now. Civ has made some contributions to the thread, and he's right, the poll thing doesn't fit the topic. As a moderator of this section, can I make threads and merge stuff too? I could fix it, if so.

CivBase wrote:Okay

When have I insulted in this thread?
Yah, B and C are pretty well true.

Sorta. I consider atheism to be a religion, and most atheists are evolutionists. I consider that to be a religion. Probably should have worded that one better...

It's pushing it, but to some degree...

Lord Pheonix wrote:Atheism is being WITHOUT a religion, you can't just go and classify it as a religion.

Technically speaking, atheism is the belief that there are no gods or otherwise higher beings, and religion is a set of beliefs and practices.

Lord Pheonix wrote:What if I go and start calling Christianity a Cult as most cultists are religious?

You'd be surprised how many do.

Lord Pheonix wrote:And you said you "expected more out of lod3x" when all he did was state his own personal beliefs therefor insulting him.

I have to disagree. L0d3x came in here, missed the point of the thread (taking it to be a debate on creationism vs evolution), insulted creationism and religion, didn't bother to form proper arguments for any of his statements, and then left.

Alright, I can't edit the poll, so these should be the choices.

Intelligent Design as Fact

Focus on Intelligent Design, Mention Macro Evolution

Half and Half

Focus on Macro Evolution, Mention Intelligent Design

Macro Evolution as Fact

Neither

I propose a fight to the death.

Recon and Rot should get on top of the Sears Tower with baseball bats, and fight this out like men!

Or at least that's how we do it in Chi-Town.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Alright, I can't edit the poll,

Neither can I.

But seriously, I can't edit the poll, but if I could, I'd put those in.

But Recon and I practically agree on this subject, now? We both agree that macro evolution shouldn't be taught as fact, that intelligent design isn't completely baseless, and I don't think he's entirely against a cameo for intelligent design to ensure macro evolution is taught objectively and as theory.

Still, it'd be pretty fun to watch, so do it anyway.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Atheism is being WITHOUT a religion, you can't just go and classify it as a religion.

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

Lord Pheonix wrote:What if I go and start calling Christianity a Cult as most cultists are religious?

Most Christians are evolutionists too.

Lord Pheonix wrote:And you said you "expected more out of lod3x" when all he did was state his own personal beliefs therefor insulting him.

This thread is for discussion and debate on whether ID and Darwinism should be taught in school, not about disproving either side. Not only did he not add anything to the discussion, but he successfully insulted Christianity several times.

You said nothing right in that post.





Even if you define atheism like that, they are still without religion as they don't believe in any form of higher power. Still does not make them a religion.

There is no "Church of atheism", no tax breaks, no forcing themselves into law, no complaining about every little thing that could be considered "insulting" in media, and most importantly no annoying me with talk.



And Christians are evolutionists? WTF?