Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
The All Purpose SCIENTIFIC Debate Thread (Former Evo Thread)
I'll repost this again as I never got any rebuttal to it yet:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
As expected, you have a narrow-minded opinion on things. Good to know you believe the leader of the free world, the Queen, the Pope etc. or anyone else who believes in God is irrational.
Then I will give you a chance. Give me a rational reason to believe in God. I won't even force you to limit it to your own God. Give me a rational, intellectually deductive argument to believe in God. If you can do so, I will believe. If you can't, then I will stand by my statement that belief in God is irrational.
And so what if I do think that the Queen, the Pope or anyone else who believes in God is irrational (and for the record, I do think both are irrational, even beyond their belief in God)? I have evidence to back it up: prayer results, numbers of different religions and denominations, unverifiable texts, lack of empirical evidence and tests and so on and so on.
Once again I will point out that authority figures are not smart just because they're authorities. Intelligence is based on actions and decisions, not what office desk you sit behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Throw a bone to certain voters perhaps?
Well, alright, fine. But by the same line of reasoning, I don't know if you really are a Christian or if you really believe in Creationism.
The fact is as far as can be viewed, Obama accepts evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
I'll give Obama credit with one thing he is extremely good at trying to make everyone happy. Find me a thread where he believes there was no creator and we can talk.
Since he supposedly believes in the Christian God, then almost by definition he believes there was a creator. The problem is that one can believe in a creator and still accept evolution. Many do, probably including Obama.
Of course, in the end, I'm not even that big a fan of Obama, so I don't really know what the point is about him in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Well we've had this discussion before. I can't prove with physical evidence there is a God anymore than you can prove there isn't. I can't prove there with physical evidence there is a reason we are here anymore than you can disprove it.
Alright. And the rational, intelligent position to hold in a situation like this is one of disbelief until the physical evidence is provided. This is unquestionably true, as you do it with UFOs, Bigfoot, Unicorns, the Tooth Faery, Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and every other single God claimed in every other religion ever to exist, but yet somehow, when it comes to God, the physical evidence must be on the negative side for you to not believe. AKA special pleading. Yet again irrational. Whodda thunk it?
PS. It's also as such that it is irrational to believe something without physical evidence. So once again, belief in God is irrational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
It goes beyond that. These are questions a person needs to ask themselves and it doesn't involve science or even needs religion for that matter.
Why do we need to ask this question? Do we really need to know why we're here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Why is the earth exactly close enough to the sun so we don't burn but we don't freeze either?
Because gravity put us in this position, and like almost every star we've observed with planets orbiting it, one planet was in the Goldilocks Zone that stretches over millions of kilometers.
No need for a God for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Why do men and women have the exact same parts to not only have sex but to create life? Is it a coincidence that we just "happened" to come together that way?
I love the phrasing there at the end.
But seriously, no, it's not a coincidence. Somewhere along the line, sexual reproduction evolved, and because it allowed for more adaptable off-spring than asexual reproduction, it became prominent. We don't have an exact set of steps about how this happened, but we can surmise it was gradual.
Once again, no need for a God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Why is there no evidence for life on other planets?
If we played with your hypothetical, then we'd simply say we haven't found it yet.
However, we have found evidence of life on other planets.
Not sure what this has to do with anything anyway, but still no need for a God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Why do we love?
Because we evolved an emotional attachment to our sexual mates, most likely for the purpose of increasing the likelihood of survival of the offspring by creating familial bonds that allow the young to be cared for with more extreme measures than if they didn't exist.
Still no God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Laugh?
Laughing is an involuntary action to express humour which serves a purpose of balancing emotions. It is a genetically printed behavior.
No God required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Cry?
Against popular belief, a lot of animals actually cry. That's because the purpose of the source of tears is to moisten the eyes, which is very important in all animals with simple eyes.
As for the emotional expression, crying most likely began as a means of communication, as babies still use it today. Eventually it also became a way of expressing emotions, and it once again is involuntary.
Still no God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Hurt?
The physical sensation of pain is one of the oldest forms of evolutionary adaptation known. It is almost universally accepted that, after vision, the next sense to evolve was that of touch. The advantage of pain or "hurt" is to give a warning of danger where one might not be aware of it in any other way. Pain is an extremely effective motivator at getting an organism away from danger. For example, put your hand on a hot stove element.
Yet again, no God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Smile?
Smiling, like laughing, is a genetically coded response to certain stimuli, generally those that make one happy. The purpose to giving responses, whether facial or otherwise physical, is because as a social species we rely on the well-being of those we depend on for our own survival. Emotional well-being is a part of this, so understanding the emotional state of a member of a society is a good way to decide the course of action, if any, to take with the member.
Still no God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Why was I born and why did I impact others lives?
You were born because the one of millions upon millions of sperm that contained half of your father's genetic information successfully fertilized the egg that contained half of your mother's genetic information and successfully made it through the 9 months of gestation required for humans.
You've impacted others lives for the simple reason as you've done things. The reasons why you have done things is based on environmental stimuli, personal experience, specific processes in the brain at a particular moment and a certain element of chance.
Sorry, nope, no God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
It goes on, but these are things I once asked myself time and time again. Eventually I looked into it a bit more, I studied it, I went over scenarios in my mind. I didn't need science for this, I didn't even need to use religion for it at the time. This is stuff I believe everyone should study and look deeply into themselves.
As I've shown, I've studied these questions from a scientific and rational standpoint and the answers I've gotten are more than satisfactory. The fact is science can answer much more than you think. As explained by Richard Feynman, there's a cascading effect of "why" in science, but so far it has managed to solve them in order, without needing to invoke God. We still hit roadblocks often, as without them, science would stop growing and we'd know everything, but we've managed within the last century or more to get a much greater understanding of how the universe works and why it is here from a strictly naturalistic viewpoint, and a basic theory of everything isn't as far off from being realized as some might think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Science has a ceiling, it can only answer so much
That's the case only when you believe that.
ETA: Changed thread to an all-purpose debate thread for all science, since no one's really talking about Evolution anymore since Big Phil went AWOL.
Last edited by Leafsdude7: 05-09-2012 at 04:40 PM.
I'll repost this again as I never got any rebuttal to it yet:
Then I will give you a chance. Give me a rational reason to believe in God. I won't even force you to limit it to your own God. Give me a rational, intellectually deductive argument to believe in God. If you can do so, I will believe. If you can't, then I will stand by my statement that belief in God is irrational.
And so what if I do think that the Queen, the Pope or anyone else who believes in God is irrational (and for the record, I do think both are irrational, even beyond their belief in God)? I have evidence to back it up: prayer results, numbers of different religions and denominations, unverifiable texts, lack of empirical evidence and tests and so on and so on.
Once again I will point out that authority figures are not smart just because they're authorities. Intelligence is based on actions and decisions, not what office desk you sit behind.
Well, alright, fine. But by the same line of reasoning, I don't know if you really are a Christian or if you really believe in Creationism.
The fact is as far as can be viewed, Obama accepts evolution.
Since he supposedly believes in the Christian God, then almost by definition he believes there was a creator. The problem is that one can believe in a creator and still accept evolution. Many do, probably including Obama.
Of course, in the end, I'm not even that big a fan of Obama, so I don't really know what the point is about him in the first place.
Alright. And the rational, intelligent position to hold in a situation like this is one of disbelief until the physical evidence is provided. This is unquestionably true, as you do it with UFOs, Bigfoot, Unicorns, the Tooth Faery, Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and every other single God claimed in every other religion ever to exist, but yet somehow, when it comes to God, the physical evidence must be on the negative side for you to not believe. AKA special pleading. Yet again irrational. Whodda thunk it?
PS. It's also as such that it is irrational to believe something without physical evidence. So once again, belief in God is irrational.
Why do we need to ask this question? Do we really need to know why we're here?
Because gravity put us in this position, and like almost every star we've observed with planets orbiting it, one planet was in the Goldilocks Zone that stretches over millions of kilometers.
No need for a God for this.
I love the phrasing there at the end.
But seriously, no, it's not a coincidence. Somewhere along the line, sexual reproduction evolved, and because it allowed for more adaptable off-spring than asexual reproduction, it became prominent. We don't have an exact set of steps about how this happened, but we can surmise it was gradual.
Once again, no need for a God.
If we played with your hypothetical, then we'd simply say we haven't found it yet.
However, we have found evidence of life on other planets.
Not sure what this has to do with anything anyway, but still no need for a God.
Because we evolved an emotional attachment to our sexual mates, most likely for the purpose of increasing the likelihood of survival of the offspring by creating familial bonds that allow the young to be cared for with more extreme measures than if they didn't exist.
Still no God.
Laughing is an involuntary action to express humour which serves a purpose of balancing emotions. It is a genetically printed behavior.
No God required.
Against popular belief, a lot of animals actually cry. That's because the purpose of the source of tears is to moisten the eyes, which is very important in all animals with simple eyes.
As for the emotional expression, crying most likely began as a means of communication, as babies still use it today. Eventually it also became a way of expressing emotions, and it once again is involuntary.
Still no God.
The physical sensation of pain is one of the oldest forms of evolutionary adaptation known. It is almost universally accepted that, after vision, the next sense to evolve was that of touch. The advantage of pain or "hurt" is to give a warning of danger where one might not be aware of it in any other way. Pain is an extremely effective motivator at getting an organism away from danger. For example, put your hand on a hot stove element.
Yet again, no God.
Smiling, like laughing, is a genetically coded response to certain stimuli, generally those that make one happy. The purpose to giving responses, whether facial or otherwise physical, is because as a social species we rely on the well-being of those we depend on for our own survival. Emotional well-being is a part of this, so understanding the emotional state of a member of a society is a good way to decide the course of action, if any, to take with the member.
Still no God.
You were born because the one of millions upon millions of sperm that contained half of your father's genetic information successfully fertilized the egg that contained half of your mother's genetic information and successfully made it through the 9 months of gestation required for humans.
You've impacted others lives for the simple reason as you've done things. The reasons why you have done things is based on environmental stimuli, personal experience, specific processes in the brain at a particular moment and a certain element of chance.
Sorry, nope, no God.
As I've shown, I've studied these questions from a scientific and rational standpoint and the answers I've gotten are more than satisfactory. The fact is science can answer much more than you think. As explained by Richard Feynman, there's a cascading effect of "why" in science, but so far it has managed to solve them in order, without needing to invoke God. We still hit roadblocks often, as without them, science would stop growing and we'd know everything, but we've managed within the last century or more to get a much greater understanding of how the universe works and why it is here from a strictly naturalistic viewpoint, and a basic theory of everything isn't as far off from being realized as some might think.
That's the case only when you believe that.
I'm with you but I have seen you make this statement a couple of times now. That is in fact incorrect, very few planets have been found in the habitable zone of their host stars. Doesn't mean they aren't there but just the numbers just aren't that great yet.
I'm with you but I have seen you make this statement a couple of times now. That is in fact incorrect, very few planets have been found in the habitable zone of their host stars. Doesn't mean they aren't there but just the numbers just aren't that great yet.
Now, carry on making Phil look like a fool.
Touche. I misspoke there. To clarify the reality, from the simple survey of 100 million stars by the Kepler program, we found over 1000 planets, 54 of which were in the habitable zone, and 5 of those were similar in size as Earth (keeping in mind that the planet doesn't need to be Earth sized to be able to sustain life, it's just the chances are much greater that it's a gas giant that can't sustain the bigger the planet is). This wasn't even an in-depth search, and is an amazingly small percentage of the stars we can even look at in the first place (1/400th of the stars in the Milky Way alone).
So, yes, to say almost all stars with planets have been found with planets in the habitable zone is without evidence, but the main point of how rare it is (which is not rare) clearly has merit.
Touche. I misspoke there. To clarify the reality, from the simple survey of 100 million stars by the Kepler program, we found over 1000 planets, 54 of which were in the habitable zone, and 5 of those were similar in size as Earth (keeping in mind that the planet doesn't need to be Earth sized to be able to sustain life, it's just the chances are much greater that it's a gas giant that can't sustain the bigger the planet is). This wasn't even an in-depth search, and is an amazingly small percentage of the stars we can even look at in the first place (1/400th of the stars in the Milky Way alone).
So, yes, to say almost all stars with planets have been found with planets in the habitable zone is without evidence, but the main point of how rare it is (which is not rare) clearly has merit.
No problem. Look at my avatar (that is Kepler), you don't have to explain astronomy to me.
Perusing my bookshelf for something to read on the elliptical, I grabbed Michael Shermer's book "The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense", which I haven't read thoroughly in several years. Shermer is the founder of Skeptic Magazine, and was once director of The Skeptics Society, so he's an experienced hand when it comes to examining and debunking nonscience and pseudoscience. The book is a bit dated (it's 10 years old) but it's still a fantastic read that I highly recommend. Creationism is one of the many piles of crap that he takes to the woodshed (on his scale, it receives a .1 for scientific validity, alongside remote viewing, astrology, holocaust revisionism, Bible Code, Freudian theory, alien abductions, and other quackery). The book is overloaded with choice quotes and paragraphs on the subject, here are a few that caught my eye from the first few chapters:
"Most deniers do not even know the accepted rules of scholarship, let alone employ them fairly...Here I am not just talking about citing sources in articles published in scholarly looking publications like the Journal of Historical Review, or thick books with dozens of pages of references in the bibliography. I am talking about the honest employment of these tools, where, in the quiet solitude of examining a particular document or translating a certain word or phrase, one has done one's best to consider the historical content and context. Creationists - whom I prefer to call evolution deniers - are especially subject to this problem, along with a lack of convergent thinking. Creationists (mainly the young-earth creationists) do not study the history of life. In fact, they have no interest in the history of life whatsoever since they already know the history as it is laid out in the book of Genesis. No one fossil, no one piece of biological or paleontological evidence has "evolution" written on it; instead, there is a convergence of evidence from tens of thousands of evidentiary bits that adds up to the story of the evolution of life. Creationists must not only ignore this convergence, they have to abandon the rules of science, which isn't difficult for them since most of them, in fact, are not practicing scientists. The only reason creationists read scientific journals at all is either to find flaws in the theory of evolution or to find ways to fit scientific ideas into their religious doctrines."
"...By contrast, creationists who devise cosmologies that they think will best fit the book of Genesis are typically not professional scientists, do not publish in peer-reviewed journals, and have no interest in testing their theories, except against what they believe to be the divine words of God."
"It is not that outsiders cannot make important contributions to science. They can and have. But in order to think outside the box one my first know what's inside the box (it's called graduate school), one must be able to convince those in the box that the box needs reinventing (it's called peer review), and, of course, one must be right (it's called research). Far from scientists being unaccepting of radical new ideas, any scientist worth his salt would love to witness or be part of a scientific revolution. But science is conservative. It cannot afford not to be. It makes rigid demands on its participants in order to weed out the bad ideas from the good."
I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution. The State Board of Education has been charged with the task of adopting curriculum requirements for Texas public schools and recently adopted guidelines that call for the examination of all sides of a scientific theory, which will encourage critical thinking in our students, an essential learning skill.
And Crazy Eyes Bachmann:
"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters in June. "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of a scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."
And Newt The Idea Man:
Newt Gingrich has said he believes in both creationism and science, stating that he doesn't "think there is necessarily a conflict between the two."
"I believe that creation as an act of faith is true, and I believe that science as a mechanical process is true," Gingrich told reporters in May. "Both can be true."
Mitt hedges his bets:
"I'm not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design," he said. "But I believe God is intelligent, and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body."
Rick gets into a real santorum over the subject:
Asked to define his own position on the issue, Santorum told the Philadelphia Inquirer in an email, "I believe in Genesis 1:1 -- God created the heavens and the earth. I don't know exactly how God did it or exactly how long it took him, but I do know that He did it."
And for those hoping for a reasoned and rational take from Ron Paul:
"I think there is a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it," Paul said.
I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution. The State Board of Education has been charged with the task of adopting curriculum requirements for Texas public schools and recently adopted guidelines that call for the examination of all sides of a scientific theory, which will encourage critical thinking in our students, an essential learning skill.
And Crazy Eyes Bachmann:
"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters in June. "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of a scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."
And Newt The Idea Man:
Newt Gingrich has said he believes in both creationism and science, stating that he doesn't "think there is necessarily a conflict between the two."
"I believe that creation as an act of faith is true, and I believe that science as a mechanical process is true," Gingrich told reporters in May. "Both can be true."
Mitt hedges his bets:
"I'm not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design," he said. "But I believe God is intelligent, and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body."
Rick gets into a real santorum over the subject:
Asked to define his own position on the issue, Santorum told the Philadelphia Inquirer in an email, "I believe in Genesis 1:1 -- God created the heavens and the earth. I don't know exactly how God did it or exactly how long it took him, but I do know that He did it."
And for those hoping for a reasoned and rational take from Ron Paul:
"I think there is a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it," Paul said.
Should let them juggle chainsaws in Phys. Ed. to let them figure out if would be a good career to pursue too.
Let's play "point out the ignorant part of the quote":
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950
Rick Perry weighs in:
I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution. The State Board of Education has been charged with the task of adopting curriculum requirements for Texas public schools and recently adopted guidelines that call for the examination of all sides of a scientific theory, which will encourage critical thinking in our students, an essential learning skill.
There is an examination of all sides of a scientific theory. Sadly, so many people think that one side of evolution is creationism, which is an utter joke. While evolution is still being examined and still repeatedly gets through that examination without crumbling, creationism has already been crushed into a compact square and flushed down the toilet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950
And Crazy Eyes Bachmann:
"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters in June. "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of a scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."
Uh. There's no "reasonable doubt" on evolution. As has been noted repeatedly, evolution is all but confirmed as true. There's no "reasonable" doubt in evolution, just a sliver of doubt. Creationism, on the other hand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950
And Newt The Idea Man:
Newt Gingrich has said he believes in both creationism and science, stating that he doesn't "think there is necessarily a conflict between the two."
"I believe that creation as an act of faith is true, and I believe that science as a mechanical process is true," Gingrich told reporters in May. "Both can be true."
Uh huh. An act of faith is true because I say it's true. That's how far that critical thinking goes.
Also, science isn't "true". It's either "useful" or "not useful". Since science has a track history and success stories in the hundreds of thousands, it's clearly useful. Faith, meanwhile, has no track record of any sort in the real world, so it would be most accurate to call it "not useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950
Mitt hedges his bets:
"I'm not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design," he said. "But I believe God is intelligent, and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body."
Ah, for once someone who at least isn't spouting complete ignorance. I don't have a problem with this quote as far as reality goes, but from a rational standpoint, it gives me quite a headache.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950
Rick gets into a real santorum over the subject:
Asked to define his own position on the issue, Santorum told the Philadelphia Inquirer in an email, "I believe in Genesis 1:1 -- God created the heavens and the earth. I don't know exactly how God did it or exactly how long it took him, but I do know that He did it."
What a non-answer. Loser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950
And for those hoping for a reasoned and rational take from Ron Paul:
"I think there is a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it," Paul said.
Well, there's just no arguing that, is there?
In all seriousness, who wouldn't just love it if a member of the US academy of sciences ran for Presidency one year, just to finally shove reality down all these ass-talkers throats?
From the first article I posted I thought this was funny.
"In November 2000, Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day—who currently serves as Canada’s public safety minister—said there is “scientific proof” that early man co-existed with dinosaurs. Day rejected criticism of his views, declaring, “If you’re looking for dinosaur politics, you need to look at the Liberals.”
From the first article I posted I thought this was funny.
"In November 2000, Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day—who currently serves as Canada’s public safety minister—said there is “scientific proof” that early man co-existed with dinosaurs. Day rejected criticism of his views, declaring, “If you’re looking for dinosaur politics, you need to look at the Liberals.”
Another funny fact:
"Day was MP for the riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla in British Columbia and the president of the Treasury Board."
Last edited by Doppler Drift: 08-24-2011 at 06:59 PM.
I am a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution. The State Board of Education has been charged with the task of adopting curriculum requirements for Texas public schools and recently adopted guidelines that call for the examination of all sides of a scientific theory, which will encourage critical thinking in our students, an essential learning skill.
And Crazy Eyes Bachmann:
"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters in June. "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of a scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."
And Newt The Idea Man:
Newt Gingrich has said he believes in both creationism and science, stating that he doesn't "think there is necessarily a conflict between the two."
"I believe that creation as an act of faith is true, and I believe that science as a mechanical process is true," Gingrich told reporters in May. "Both can be true."
Mitt hedges his bets:
"I'm not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design," he said. "But I believe God is intelligent, and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body."
Rick gets into a real santorum over the subject:
Asked to define his own position on the issue, Santorum told the Philadelphia Inquirer in an email, "I believe in Genesis 1:1 -- God created the heavens and the earth. I don't know exactly how God did it or exactly how long it took him, but I do know that He did it."
And for those hoping for a reasoned and rational take from Ron Paul:
"I think there is a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it," Paul said.
You know things are bad when you line up a bunch of quotes and Newt Gingrich has the most sensible one of the bunch.
From the first article I posted I thought this was funny.
"In November 2000, Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day—who currently serves as Canada’s public safety minister—said there is “scientific proof” that early man co-existed with dinosaurs. Day rejected criticism of his views, declaring, “If you’re looking for dinosaur politics, you need to look at the Liberals.”
Perhaps Stock spent too much time in the heart of Dinosauer country.
There is nowhere quite like the Drumheller Valley! In the Heart of the Canadian Badlands in Southern Alberta, the Drumheller Valley offers visitors a unique combination of spectacular scenery and interesting things to do. Within easy driving distance of Banff, Calgary or Red Deer, a few hours on good all-weather highways will take you into another world - the world of startling contrasts between the deep past and the exciting present..
"I'm not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design," he said. "But I believe God is intelligent, and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body."
Ah, for once someone who at least isn't spouting complete ignorance. I don't have a problem with this quote as far as reality goes, but from a rational standpoint, it gives me quite a headache.
I don't get why this can't be considered intelligent design, and accepted as a philosophical question rather than scientific? It seems like when the concept came up in the States the creationists took it over and used it in the exact same ham-fisted manner they did with creationism, and now it's mocked in the exact same way.
Evolution should not imply atheism, but rather it should be neutral on that matter. As well intelligent design doesn't need to touch evolution, it more deals with the origin of existence, the big bang and all sorts of meta-physics stuff.
The whole things just all messed up, with the creationist/ID side being stupid and the science side prone to being snobbish. Can't we all just get along?
The whole things just all messed up, with the creationist/ID side being stupid and the science side prone to being snobbish. Can't we all just get along?
Says the guy who's avatar is of the Macho Man delivering an elbow drop to Jesus?
I don't get why this can't be considered intelligent design, and accepted as a philosophical question rather than scientific? It seems like when the concept came up in the States the creationists took it over and used it in the exact same ham-fisted manner they did with creationism, and now it's mocked in the exact same way.
Evolution should not imply atheism, but rather it should be neutral on that matter. As well intelligent design doesn't need to touch evolution, it more deals with the origin of existence, the big bang and all sorts of meta-physics stuff.
The whole things just all messed up, with the creationist/ID side being stupid and the science side prone to being snobbish. Can't we all just get along?
Huh? have you heard of the Discovery Institute? they call their brand of creationism, intelligent design, as in God designed all biological beings like an engineer designs a car.
What mittens is talking about is theistic evolution (seemingly)
Says the guy who's avatar is of the Macho Man delivering an elbow drop to Jesus?
Snobbish may be the wrong word, let's just say they're all to happy to call them stupid and mock their core belief system as childish fairy-tales. This sort of mocking attitude has never helped a situation.
Also, that's not Jesus but rather God, and it's a tribute to the Macho Man going up to heaven to tell convince God to delay the rapture.
you know, when i really think about it, maybe they should teach ID next to evolution. When students see how little sense ID makes and how much sense evolution makes, maybe they will make a good decision.
