Old 17th January 2005, 20:03   #81
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
I would hardly say that the church has artifacts or proof of creationism. At most, they have story they were told in a book.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 20:49   #82
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Well, at most, museums of natural history have little more than chipped pot-roast bones with a story created by some scientist somewhere.
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
I'm not sure how ontological knowledge fits into set theory, but it's certainly not relevant to what you said before.

Russell's paradox show's only a problem with the set notation used (that it is possible to express paradoxical sets), not any broad terms about logic systems or anything.
Russell's paradox shows that it is mathmatically impossible for relativism to be true, because nothing is something.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 21:34   #83
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
At least they have bones.

http://www.googlewar.com/search.cfm?...q2=Creationism
lol.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 21:39   #84
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
@shakey_snake:
That's so wrong it's not even funny:
  1. Russell's paradox only applies to a flawed naïve version of set theory.
  2. It never implies that "nothing is something" even within this flawed theory.
  3. How you want to get from "nothing is something" to "relativism is impossible" is completely unclear.
  4. -a != ∅ has again absolutely nothing to do with the above except that it uses a symbol out of set theory.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2005, 22:04   #85
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
Russell's paradox shows that it is mathmatically impossible for relativism to be true, because nothing is something.
No it doesn't. It shows a flaw in a version of set theory. That's all. Additionally, mathematical concepts do not directly apply to real life as simply as that - physics gives mathematical models of the real world, but maths and the world are distinct systems.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 01:20   #86
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
So if evolution is not a set of random mutations that are acted upon by natural selection, then what exactly is evolution? I've taken some college-level biology but it's never been presented as anything but that.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 02:06   #87
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
Evolution is an emperor who has been wearing no clothes. It survives because every time someone points out he is naked, the person is derided as a religious nutcase. It is the evolutionists who are the religious fanatics. They protect their dogma with the fervor of the inquisition. Competing with anything else on an equal footing is their greatest fear. That's why they have refused to debate creationists for years. They kept losing the debates. Instead, they throw mud, deride and look for sympathetic judges.
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 02:20   #88
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally posted by Vytas
Evolution is an emperor who has been wearing no clothes. It survives because every time someone points out he is naked, the person is derided as a religious nutcase. It is the evolutionists who are the religious fanatics. They protect their dogma with the fervor of the inquisition. Competing with anything else on an equal footing is their greatest fear. That's why they have refused to debate creationists for years. They kept losing the debates. Instead, they throw mud, deride and look for sympathetic judges.




thank you for tonights laughs

edit: and could someone explain to me what all this paradox stuff has to do with creationism vs evolution?

mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 03:48   #89
ShyShy
Amazon Bush Woman
Forum Queen
 
ShyShy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Sticks, Queensland
Posts: 8,067
You know, this is one of the few times I wish I could just hand everyone a joint.
ShyShy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 05:05   #90
dlichterman
Forum King
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Where Hell Froze Over
Posts: 2,466
OMFG, jesus f-ing christ people.....

Ok, just explain this, if evolution is not proven BECAUSE of Creationism, then what makes you SO SURE that creationism is right.

oh, and im an "Agnostic Diest Jew"

Software is like sex: It's better when it's free.-*-If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0-*-Guess the band from pics game
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 06:07   #91
whiteflip
Post Master General
(Forum King)
 
whiteflip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Seattle, Now Las Vegas
Posts: 6,032
Quote:
Originally posted by ShyShy
You know, this is one of the few times I wish I could just hand everyone a joint.
Please do.

I'm Back?
whiteflip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 06:20   #92
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
No it doesn't. It shows a flaw in a version of set theory. That's all. Additionally, mathematical concepts do not directly apply to real life as simply as that - physics gives mathematical models of the real world, but maths and the world are distinct systems.

Ok, that's about enough of this thread.
I really love you guys and having conversations with you guys about things like this sometimes, but when you guys work a topic over like you have to the point of:

1) I have a self-proclaimed Relativist trying to prove me wrong.

2) I have one atheist trying to prove to me that evolutionist theory is correct via finding mathematical formulas, and another stooge trying to accomplish the same thing by saying that mathematic models have no real bearing on life.
... I really can't stand to reply any longer.



Listening to you guys is kinda like watching Jerry Springer. You throw a bunch of incoherent crap around, just trying to slay the beast that you make Christianity, theism and creationism out to be, and expect me to somehow explain to you why I disagree with you, but nothing you guys say is really ever put together well enough that there is even a reply.

If I wasn't even in this thread, you supposedly "critical thinkers" would never even address the differences between agnostic relativism and atheist scientific method; you'd just be content to make your cuts at Theism/creationism/Christianity and the thread would disappeared
onto the second page of this forum, and no one would ever think twice about it.
That's really sad.

Antireligious Fundamentalism
I wonder if anyones coined that term yet.
We can talk about this next ime it comes up guys, but for noww, I'm out.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 06:24   #93
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
Evolution is not proven because there is no proof for it, period. Deep down, evolutionists know the implications of evolution being a lie.

Take a look at the flagellum of a primitive bacterium. It is a marvel of engineering.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irre...lexity_01.html

This is sufficient all by itself to demolish the theory of evolution, since the flagellum has an irreducibly complex structure. If one single molecule in this fabulously complex structure of 240 distinct proteins were to disappear, or become defective, the flagellum would neither work nor be of any use to the bacterium. I could go on and on...
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 07:34   #94
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
lol Vytas, again... with the hilarity.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 08:20   #95
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
he does have a point though, about intelligent design. I'm no creationist, but the idea of order out of chaos and life coming from a group of molecules coming together seems slightly far-fetched. Our biological chemistry told us that there was some convincing evidence in interstellar gas clouds where some molecules were remarkably similar to the phosphates life is based upon. Very interesting, but it still does not convince me.

Of course it convinces me way much more than creationism, but not completely.

Has anyone read "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown? It's not particularly amazing prose, but there's an idea in it which I thought was really interesting. About how God is actually the force that holds atoms together, the "missing link" in what physics struggles to explain. I can't remember exactly, but it was very interesting. Unfortunately I don't have the books with me to look it up again.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 08:40   #96
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
Yeah God is used as the reason for a lot of things we couldn't explain, and then we figured those things out and it made scientific knowledge grow.

Personally I think Evolution is just as much confusing as creationism is.

Evolution: "You think life just popped up out of nowhere and due to heat and chemical reactions that life just created itself?"
Creationism: "You think God just popped up out of nowhere and created earth, the heavens and the universe?"

Come on people... hasn't it dawned on you that the bible is simply a book of morals told through metaphors, analogies, and stories? The book of the bible is a guide to living a life of goodness. Its not a book that should be used to answer people's questions. It, under no circumstances, shouldn't be taken as literal truth.

edit: dammit forgot the "n't" at the end of shouldn't.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 08:59   #97
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
I think you got Evolution and Creationism the wrong way round... but I agree with you on what the bible is. IMO it's exactly that, a "book of morals told through metaphors, analogies, and stories? The book of the bible is a guide to living a life of goodness".
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 10:44   #98
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
1) I have a self-proclaimed Relativist trying to prove me wrong.
Assuming you're referring to me, I'm not a relativist. It's your way of dealing with me. Faith is based on lack of means of knowing the truth ("proof denies faith"). If one could prove the existence of God, one could not have faith in it. This is not "relativism", it is fact.

Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
2) I have one atheist trying to prove to me that evolutionist theory is correct via finding mathematical formulas, and another stooge trying to accomplish the same thing by saying that mathematic models have no real bearing on life.
Right. Assuming the second part is referring to me:
  1. Not a stooge. Sorry, inaccurate.
  2. Not trying to prove evolution wrong, I'm proving your bullshit hypothesis wrong. Most people who equate maths and life are clinically insane, or just misinformed. Quantum physics is based upon the fact that simple maths cannot model life - one can't certainly define these. I'm no longer arguing this. I'm telling you this. As a mathematician. I have two years of a degree in Pure Maths down, which is clearly more than you do.
  3. I know you didn't say it, but you keep implicitely labelling me as an Atheist, which isn't accurate.
  4. I think it's fucking rich that someone guffaws at a person trying to prove things with mathematical models after they incorrectly applied a paradoxical problem in deprecated set theory.

I'm going to start using your logic here, Shaky.

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.

Therefore, there is no God.

<removed flame>

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 12:07   #99
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
<flame kept to myself>

shakey_snake and vytas, welcome to my ignore list
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 13:55   #100
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
but... but... shakey_snake is right, he's always right... you can't ignore the truth!!! How are you going to live without the truth if you ignore him!!!
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 15:26   #101
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
What good is the truth when it's incomprehensible gibberish?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 19:04   #102
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Well, and don't take this the wrong way...

when the truth is incomprehensible jibberish to you, where does that place you?
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 20:22   #103
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Vytas
Take a look at the flagellum of a primitive bacterium. It is a marvel of engineering.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irre...lexity_01.html

This is sufficient all by itself to demolish the theory of evolution, since the flagellum has an irreducibly complex structure. If one single molecule in this fabulously complex structure of 240 distinct proteins were to disappear, or become defective, the flagellum would neither work nor be of any use to the bacterium. I could go on and on...
Come back when you have a way to demolish the part of the theory of evolution which explains the formation of these small particles. "It can't possibly have evolved because it's really complicated!" is a flawed argument from the offset. We know things are incredibly complicated. That doesn't disprove evolution, it disproves all theories of Intelligent Design that don't involve a creator of superphysical ability.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2005, 20:56   #104
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Quote:
Originally posted by Phyltre
Well, and don't take this the wrong way...

when the truth is incomprehensible jibberish to you, where does that place you?
Touché

Otoh, what am I supposed to do with something that's apparently complete nonsense? Believe it?

And I'm not the only one who isn't impressed by shakey_snake's arguments (in this thread and in others).

Now tell me, honestly: Does his "proof" make any sense to you and if it does could you try to explain it in a way that I (and zootm) can understand it?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 01:52   #105
dlichterman
Forum King
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Where Hell Froze Over
Posts: 2,466
yeah quit your bitching about oh its complicated, so it must be god. If thats your argument, then god must have created calculus.

Software is like sex: It's better when it's free.-*-If at first you don't succeed; call it version 1.0-*-Guess the band from pics game
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 01:55   #106
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Well, I make no claims to being able to "prove" matters of faith. That being said:

I believe that one of the points being made is that evolution leaves much to the imagination. Very much. The fact that we can directly observe the adaptation of species to new surroundings/etc. does not lead in any way to proof that we all came to be as we are now through such processes--or rather, (since we doubtlessly have adapted somewhat to even the American Continent [for Americans]) that all life originated through such processes.

Also, the idea of multiple interdependent mutations in organisms that directly altered the survivability of said organisms enough to increase prevalence, while not affecting their ability to create offspring, and having this mutation carry through the breeding process with another individual who could not have undergone a simultaneous mutation. One random mutation does not create a new species, outside of laboratory/controlled breeding situations. In fact, it would appear that the flagellum example was a good one: basically all zootm did about that one was to say that it could have evolved (without saying anything about HOW.) It remains that we have a device of equivalent complexity to a motor, in incredibly tiny form, in what was once considered to be a relatively very simple life form early in the evolutionary chain. Speaking of which, anyone considered what kind of mutation the first successful breeding must have required?

In the end, all of the answers you could conceivably give to these questions are nothing more than conjecture. I proscribe to the idea that something could not have evolved if it wasn't viable in a primitive form--but eventually we reach the most primitive possible form, and how or under what circumstances it could possibly have replicated or mutated enough to create new kinds of life form(s) separate from itself and self-replicable in itself enough to further the evolutionary process as we know it must have progressed (if this is indeed the method of our eventual existence) is a total mystery to one and all.

And while perhaps this theory is not directly applicable to a real-life situation, the law of entropy implies that due to natural processes, things generally get less complex over time overall, rather than more complex. Yet during a fairly long timespan, the overall complexity of life has increased exponentially, and consistently. This pattern is not easily explained without the assumption of some sort of external impetus or guidance--after all, why should life exist? To self-perpetuate? If the beginnings of life were arbitrary, there was no purpose in the first life forms, or in any subsequent life forms either. Which is to say, life developed a principle of self-perpetuation for no good reason, and irascibly held to development without reason, and split into two sexes without reason, and became partially closed systems without reason. So then, the conjecture is, that life created itself. Or that circumstance created life, and it developed internal volition somehow. Even if we argue that only one kind of life developed volition though chance, and that this life existed simply because it had volition, we have not explained the volition itself. Lacking consciousness of any kind as the pre-pre-historic world supposedly did, what would cause an inert substance to progenate? Chance?

Some leave too much to chance.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 01:57   #107
Vytas
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Santa Clarita, CA USA
Posts: 52
It's fascinating to see how people only hear what they want to hear and read what they think I wrote - as in the statement made up out of thin air: "It can't possibly have evolved because it's really complicated!"
Vytas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 02:12   #108
Spazz333
Major Dude
 
Spazz333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Limbo
Posts: 1,498
Quote:
Originally posted by dlichterman
yeah quit your bitching about oh its complicated, so it must be god. If thats your argument, then god must have created calculus.
Bad argument there. If you go by creationism god created man, man created calculus. Therefore god created calculus by proxy.

Spazz333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 02:14   #109
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
@Phyltre:

From the text I quoted and linked to here:
Quote:
4. Spiritualist dualisms have been theological and hence uncritical when they project an organized transcendent agent as responsible for the organized and novel nature of actual produced bodies. They have taken such recourse due to an impoverished concept of matter: that it is chaotic (and hence cannot account for the order of bodies) or passive (a matter tamed by the laws of God or deterministic science and hence unable to account for the novelty seen in the genesis of new bodies: the famous controversy over the alleged conflict of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics is a result of this thought pattern).
Matter "created life", or rather it became so complex that it fulfilled the (arbitrary) criteria usually required for calling something alive.

And as for "Why should life exist?", the question implies that life should have a purpose, it implies the existance of a conscious being, in a universe without a creator and ruler this question is ultimately pointless.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 02:20   #110
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
Lets revert back to the actual subject at hand here. Creationism or Evolution in our public schools? Now I think its blatantly obvious that every person in school should understand where it is they came from and no I'm not refering to sex-ed(another whole can of worms).

Creationism, we have derived from religious aspects (regardless of which religion). Which means we we'll have people in public schools of different religions learning conflicting creationism stories and one where her grade and thus her future depends on it. Its one thing for science to go against your religion, its another to have one religion going against another. Also, as someone proposed earlier, which creationism story out of the hundreds available should be chosen?

Evolution, however, is a little more accepted by the scientific community than any other creation story. Yes it might conflict with your religion but I thought we all made a clear distinction from what is religious and what is scientific.

I think I'll go with science on this one and not have to worry about having religious conflicts or being directly offending to other religions.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 02:38   #111
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Quote:
Matter "created life", or rather it became so complex that it fulfilled the (arbitrary) criteria usually required for calling something alive.
And as for "Why should life exist?", the question implies that life should have a purpose, it implies the existance of a conscious being, in a universe without a creator and ruler this question is ultimately pointless.
My point there was actually this: why should life procreate? As in, what could have possibly induced this semiactive material to self-replicate and form individuals, etc? It's a semantics question, not a philosophical one.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 02:50   #112
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
And why not assume that the material (we're talking about a whole universe here, plus lots of time) was/is capable of doing these things without external stimulus?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 02:55   #113
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Even if it is theoretically capable, what force would cause it to do so?
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 03:04   #114
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
None.

The whole theory is based on a development out of itself without the influence of an outside force.

It could be said that if you're looking for an outside force you're already implying that the theory of evolution is wrong.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 03:08   #115
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Sooo....

..it procreated at random, and also developed the passing on of genetic traits by chance?

I mean, that must've been a lot of mutation for that first pseudo-organism.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 03:48   #116
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by bgesley
Lets revert back to the actual subject at hand here. Creationism or Evolution in our public schools?
They've trotted off into their own little world of debate... and i must say it is an interesting read.

Back on topic... I would like evolution taught in schools like I was taught... it is the theory of evolution. Simply stated with nothing else taught in 'science' class. Creation or 'Divine Guidance' should be taught in 'Religion' class.

Again, I have no problem reconciling evolution and creation. It is the way I was taught, and the way the Catholic Church teaches today. God created man's immortal soul in his image and likeness and placed that soul in an animal that evolved from the dust of the Earth. What is so objectionable about that?

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 03:55   #117
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,423
Quote:
Originally posted by Phyltre
Sooo....

..it procreated at random, and also developed the passing on of genetic traits by chance?

I mean, that must've been a lot of mutation for that first pseudo-organism.
Who says it was random?

The absence of an outside force or a conscious being guiding everything doesn't mean it was random.

It may well be a necessary development.

It may be that under the right circumstances life has to form.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 04:16   #118
DigitalAssassin
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14
On the topic of creationism in schools:

Creationism should at least be introduced as a viable option. Kids are going to have the same problem as a long of people in this forum do: They'll have difficulty accepting that life, as complex as it is, happened by chance. We don't need to shove a bunch of religious doctrine down their throats, but we need to give them the option of believing that a superior (or at the very least, an outside force) could have created them. How would this be an infringementof religion on a scientific system, when (1) it's at least as believable as the universe simply existing forever by chance, and (2) scientists defend darwinism at least as 'religiously' as (for example) Christians defend their beliefs.

(Edit: Typos)

Last edited by DigitalAssassin; 19th January 2005 at 05:41.
DigitalAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 04:47   #119
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
^ which one are ya gonna pick. You sure can't teach them all!

[edit]I will not allow some fundimentalist teach my kids their beliefs any sooner than I would let some Pygmy teach them theirs. If learning about different beliefs was in a setting of learning about different cultures, it would be different. But we are talking about Science class here.[/edit]

It needs to be taught in religion class. You go to a private school and learn it there or go to Sunday School, or whatever. Then each kid gets the education their parents feel is appropriate. We all need to stop ramming beliefs down other's throats!

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2005, 10:08   #120
missyob
Angel of Winamp
 
missyob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The Winamp House
Posts: 4,578
This is all causing such an uproar in town. On the news 2 nights ago they were interviewing 2 parents that waited 3 hours to speak with the principle about all of this.
missyob is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump