Should evolution be taught in schools? [Archive] - Page 4

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Oh, is THAT what you think creationism is?

JD's idea of what CBID involves: [start CBID statement] God did it [end CBID statement] :rolleyes:

Yes that is basically what creationism is. And that is what anyone who believes in Intelligent design can say. If I ask why humans have five fingers - you don't have to look for a reason - you can just say ""well god did it that way". If I ask you why Australia has so many animals that are found no where else in the world - you don't have to look at a reason - you can just say again "God put them there".

There's a little more to it, if you look into it.

I have looked into it - and basically Intelligent Design is just religious groups trying to shoehorn evolution into the concept of god and a supernatural being. If they can't get creationism into the schools - they feel they can rework it into a theory whereby someone controls the evolution. To me it's no different than the Greeks and Romans believing that their gods controlled and used people as their play things.

And my point is still valid - neither ev nor cbid can explain the first occurance of the initial stuff - ev. says the initial stuff is whatever was behind the Big Bang (correct me if I'm wrong, please) and cbid says the initial stuff is an intelligent, powerful being.
Up to a point yes - but by you saying that a super human being is involved - you don't have to look any further - you just have to believe it. Scientists however ARE looking at what is behind the Big Bang. The Big Bang isn't the do all and end of the scientific study, maybe you should get a subscription to Discover Magazine (http://www.discover.com/) to see all the studies being done on Evolution and the Big Bang Theory and before.

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Giroth
...EVOLUTION AIN"T REAL,PEOPLE!wahahaaaaaaa!LOL
...Think as you will...........but evolution is, in my opinion, foolish,incomplete,nonsense,
and crud.It doesn't add up at all.LOL

And the earth did what?pop up out of nowhere?did it evolve from a rock?the process could go on,and on,and on.......hehehehehahahahahaa!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are in a happy place, because ignorance is bliss. ;)

RÃan

06-01-2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
......Up to a point yes - but by you saying that a super human being is involved - you don't have to look any further - you just have to believe it. Scientists however ARE looking at what is behind the Big Bang.
You can take it back all you want, JD - what is BEHIND the Big Bang, what is BEHIND what is BEHIND the BB, what is BEHIND what is BEHIND what is BEHIND the BB - you will eventually, when you stop trying to cover up, realize that my point is completely valid - each theory has a starting point that they will NEVER be able to scientifically explain. Are you honest enough to admit that, or do you honestly not see my point?

The Big Bang isn't the do all and end of the scientific study, maybe you should get a subscription to Discover Magazine (http://www.discover.com/) to see all the studies being done on Evolution and the Big Bang Theory and before.
Did I say it was the do all and end all? I was discussing the BB SOLELY because my point was about the "initial stuff" behind each theory. I fully realize there are other aspects of the theory of evolution. Is it your contention that one is an idiot if one does not subscribe to Discover Magazine? Personally, I think that a magazine related to a TV show would not be at the height of scientific periodicals ..... :rolleyes: It's your choice, but I would appreciate if you would not be so condescending towards me. I probably have more of a scientific background than you do, anyway.

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
...- you will eventually, when you stop trying to cover up, realize that my point is completely valid - each theory has a starting point that they will NEVER be able to scientifically explain. Are you honest enough to admit that, or do you honestly not see my point?
Then it would be perfectly valid for me to say that I created the universe. And you could not argue against me, because I believe it to be so, though I have no evidence to support it, just as you have no evidence to support that a supernatural being created this universe.

...Is it your contention that one is an idiot if one does not subscribe to Discover Magazine? ....
Better to get a subscription to the Journal Nature. It will run you about $300/yr (well, with discount anyway). Popular Science is very much for the everyday person and not too much for the person with a science background. Discover is a bit of a cut above, with far more details and more interesting information. It would be considered more cutting edge than Popular Science Magazine but still can be understood by the average Joe (I think.. I hope).

Cirdan

06-01-2003, 02:03 PM

The fact that there is a limit as to what we can know does not make all ideas equal except in certainty. There are also the aspect of plausability and substantiation. I don't think anyone is trying to teach theories about the absolute unknown. ID also tends to equivocate god and nature thereby losing most of it's theistic aspect an thus most of it's prime motive.

HOBBIT

06-01-2003, 02:12 PM

Yes, Giroth I know that you were saying No to evolution being taught in schools... i was asking "what are you talking about?" because WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

you are obviously very ignorant. *resists flaming after reading giroth's posts*

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
You can take it back all you want, JD - what is BEHIND the Big Bang, what is BEHIND what is BEHIND the BB, what is BEHIND what is BEHIND what is BEHIND the BB - you will eventually, when you stop trying to cover up, realize that my point is completely valid - each theory has a starting point that they will NEVER be able to scientifically explain. Are you honest enough to admit that, or do you honestly not see my point?

I agree there will always be something else to LEARN, but your beliefs don't require further learning - all you have to do is just stop and say "God did it" and be done with it. Whatever isn't understood is god. It has been that way since man has been on earth. It used to be believed that solar eclipses were caused by the gods anger too or that the reason a city was rocked by a volcano was because the gods were angry. I don't see much difference in the mythical being that modern Christianity or any other religion today believes in - than what the people in ancient civilisations believed in.

Did I say it was the do all and end all? I was discussing the BB SOLELY because my point was about the "initial stuff" behind each theory. I fully realize there are other aspects of the theory of evolution.

That's good. But where is religion trying to find the truth? The key aspect of religion is to have belief and not to question. The main point of science it to question. Without questioning - people would still think you'd fall of the face of the earth or that the earth was the center of everything. Religion was FORCED to accept these things because they had no choice. Now they are coming to terms with evolution - but they still need to fit god in there or else it destroys the whole belief system. I'm sorry - I just don't believe in a mythical being that controls or created everything. There is a logical and scientific explanation of why we are here and where everything came from and I just want to search for the truth.

Is it your contention that one is an idiot if one does not subscribe to Discover Magazine?

No - I just think that you are a religious person that has strong beliefs. I don't think you are really into searching for the TRUTH though - I think you just want the information that supports your established beliefs.

Personally, I think that a magazine related to a TV show would not be at the height of scientific periodicals ..... :rolleyes:

The CABLE station came afterward and is relatively brand new (with digital cable). Discover magazine has been around A LOT longer. Obviously you know nothing abotu Discover Magazine and just quickly glanced at the website and assumed it was a tv show. :rolleyes:

It's your choice, but I would appreciate if you would not be so condescending towards me. I probably have more of a scientific background than you do, anyway.
Talk about being condescending. :rolleyes:

Earniel

06-01-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
you are obviously very ignorant. *resists flaming after reading giroth's posts*

Tssk tssk. Is that the right attitude for a administrator? :p

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by EÃ¤rniel
Tssk tssk. Is that the right attitude for a administrator? :p
I like that - a moderator - moderating an admin. :D

HOBBIT

06-01-2003, 02:26 PM

hey - im just stating the truth. you can call someone ignorant on this board :P (if they really are - look up definition).

At least I did not call him an ignorant fool.

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
hey - im just stating the truth. you can call someone ignorant on this board :P (if they really are - look up definition).

At least I did not call him an ignorant fool.
Like you felt like doing. :p:D

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 02:29 PM

Religion is not a truth seeking establishment. It's followers are expected to follow the doctrine and beliefs of that religion without question. Science allows for question. Questioning the established information is the basis for science. This is why a religion is a belief system. You have to believe it without question and have faith that it's doctrine is the truth without proof. No, before you get all your christain panties in a twist, I am not saying that science is a religion. I am using a comparison. So, be religious, by all means. Believe the doctrine and the stories past on by primitive people as truth about your world. But please do not push your belief system on the rest of the world.

Some Native American tribes believe that at the beginning of the world a creator turned people into animals. This is the basis for their traditional bond with the animal world. It is brought into some ceremonies.

If we are going to be fair to all cultures, perhaps we should bring this belief into the science classroom as well. We can spend an entire year going through belief systems and how each religion and society views creation. Would that satify you? Or don't you think it would be a waste of time and money to have kids learn every single view in the world by every single culture that ever existed?
Originally posted by Cirdan
The fact that there is a limit as to what we can know ....
I do not believe that there is a limit to what I can know.

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 02:31 PM

Lief Erikson

06-01-2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No- because unlike creationism - science doesn't claim everything is known. They also are searching for the origins and cause of the Big Bang. Under your feelings- it seems as if if you don't understand it - then you can just explain it away as being god and be done with it. Science tries pieciing the puzzle together and is always searching for the TRUTH - not something that they just believe to be the truth.
Creationism doesn't claim everything is told through the Bible either. We know for a fact that there are numerous things about heaven, about the spiritual realm, and about science that aren't spoken about in the Bible. But the Lord tells us what we need to know to come to him and to come to know him deeply, through the Bible.

Scientists believe what they believe, all the different theories in science nowadays, because they have very good reasons to believe those things. They believe what they have experienced, based upon all the evidence they have at hand.

I believe in the Bible's accuracy, about spiritual things as well as those scientific things it has in it, based upon my experience with God. It is not merely belief and faith, without reason for belief and faith.

Cirdan

06-01-2003, 02:37 PM

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Creationism doesn't claim everything is told through the Bible either. We know for a fact that there are numerous things about heaven, about the spiritual realm, and about science that aren't spoken about in the Bible. But the Lord tells us what we need to know to come to him and to come to know him deeply, through the Bible.

So then you don't believe that god created the heaven and earth in six days and on the 7th rested? Or that he created Adam and Eve or that they bit an apple and were cast out of the Garden of Eden?

Scientists believe what they believe, all the different theories in science nowadays, because they have very good reasons to believe those things. They believe what they have experienced, based upon all the evidence they have at hand.

EXACTLY - and there is very good evidence to support evolution. There is really nothing to support Intelligent design - other than BELIEF (without facts). Belief is the corner stone of religion - and without that - religion falls apart. Belief is NOT the corner stone of science - the search for the TRUTH is the corner stone of science.

I believe in the Bible's accuracy, about spiritual things as well as those scientific things it has in it, based upon my experience with God. It is not merely belief and faith, without reason for belief and faith.
Why do you believe the bibles accuracy? Why not the ancient romans or greeks? Why can't Poseidon be living under the sea? Is that anymore implausable than a heaven and hell? Why can't there be gods that cause eruptions and makes the waves swell and cause tidal waves? Because science has proven what causes these things. They're no longer mysterious things we need to explain away by mythical beings.

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 02:51 PM

[Originally posted by Lief Erikson
...We know for a fact that there are numerous things about heaven, about the spiritual realm, and about science that aren't spoken about in the Bible....

Scientists believe what they believe, all the different theories in science nowadays, because they have very good reasons to believe those things. They believe what they have experienced, based upon all the evidence they have at hand.
You do not 'know numberous things about heaven', you only believe what you have been told through the leaders of your faith. These things have no basis in fact or reality. There is no evidence that anyone can present to support the creation theory. Only what people believe through their religious beliefs. Just as any of the other religions believe. It is what you were taught as a child, because you did not question it.

Science is not based on belief systems as religions are. As I said before, science is not like a religion. Please do NOT mix them up. They have good reason to believe (as you say) what is real and what is not.

Lief Erikson

06-01-2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So then you don't believe that god created the heaven and earth in six days and on the 7th rested? Or that he created Adam and Eve or that they bit an apple and were cast out of the Garden of Eden?
You misunderstand me. I do believe in the historical and scientific validity of the Bible. I do believe in the Adam and Eve story, and in the Creation story (Though I think the current interpretation of the Creation story is too simplistic). I was pointing out that the purpose of the Bible wasn't to be a book that tells everything there is to know about everything. It doesn't need to talk about the atomic theory or Quantum Mechanics, for it has a specific purpose which is to instruct us on something different.
Originally posted by jerseydevil
EXACTLY - and there is very good evidence to support evolution. There is really nothing to support Intelligent design - other than BELIEF (without facts). Belief is the corner stone of religion - and without that - religion falls apart. Belief is NOT the corner stone of science - the search for the TRUTH is the corner stone of science.
It is true that science is believed because of evidence. The Bible is believed because of evidence too, though. In many cases, anyway. There are Christians that aren't born again yet but who believe anyway, without any sort of evidence.

But in the Bible, does God ever demand people to believe in him with no evidence at all to back up those claims? No. Paul didn't believe, and through miraculous experience, God drew him to himself. Gideon had trouble believing, and God proved himself to him through miraculous signs.

Today is no different. I have come to know God through miraculous experience (The born again experience), and God has proved himself faithful to me ever since. We believe based upon evidence, even though it is an evidence that only will work for those people who have experienced it, and not for everyone. Everyone does have access to it though, if they look for it. That is something I have tried to drive home repeatedly on Entmoot, but everyone ignores me. I wonder why ;).
Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why do you believe the bibles accuracy? Why not the ancient romans or greeks? Why can't Poseidon be living under the sea? Is that anymore implausable than a heaven and hell? Why can't there be gods that cause eruptions and makes the waves swell and cause tidal waves? Because science has proven what causes these things. They're no longer mysterious things we need to explain away by mythical beings.
I have no reason to believe in Poseidon. I have very great reason to believe in God. And it's not simply believing, as Ruinel has said, and as Atheists tend to believe. That's all they can see, so that's what they say. That's all they think there is. There is more; they simply haven't experienced it, and as it doesn't fit their own beliefs, they don't believe in it.

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
You misunderstand me. I do believe in the historical and scientific validity of the Bible. I do believe in the Adam and Eve story, and in the Creation story (Though I think the current interpretation of the Creation story is too simplistic). I was pointing out that the purpose of the Bible wasn't to be a book that tells everything there is to know about everything. It doesn't need to talk about the atomic theory or Quantum Mechanics, for it has a specific purpose which is to instruct us on something different.

But then if you believe in Adam and Even - then you really can't believe in Intelligent Design. The bible is pretty clear on things - but people didn't understand stuff when they wrote it.

It is true that science is believed because of evidence. The Bible is believed because of evidence too, though. In many cases, anyway. There are Christians that aren't born again yet but who believe anyway, without any sort of evidence.

There is no evidence in the bible. There is no evidence that there was a big flood - as I have gone on about before - nor is there proof that there was an Adam and Eve or that there was a Job. It's all belief in a book you BELIEVE was written by god.

But in the Bible, does God ever demand people to believe in him with no evidence at all to back up those claims? No. Paul didn't believe, and through miraculous experience, God drew him to himself. Gideon had trouble believing, and God proved himself to him through miraculous signs.

He does repeatedly - you just chose to pick out things where he actually provides proof. You're also only looking at the new testament obviously - because there god asks to have blind faith.

Today is no different. I have come to know God through miraculous experience (The born again experience), and God has proved himself faithful to me ever since. We believe based upon evidence, even though it is an evidence that only will work for those people who have experienced it, and not for everyone.

What evidence would that be?

Everyone does have access to it though, if they look for it. That is something I have tried to drive home repeatedly on Entmoot, but everyone ignores me. I wonder why ;).

I don't ignore you - I just don't believe in a mythical being like that. Give me proof. Some scientific evidence (not just well I feel his presence around me - or I see him in the flowers and animals) .

I have no reason to believe in Poseidon. I have very great reason to believe in God. And it's not simply believing, as Ruinel has said, and as Atheists tend to believe. That's all they can see, so that's what they say. That's all they think there is. There is more; they simply haven't experienced it, and as it doesn't fit their own beliefs, they don't believe in it.
You don't know what I've experienced - so you can't really say. I have studied it and I used to read the bible - then I started thinking about it and came to the conclusion none of it made really much sense.

I feel that religion is just a way for people to come to grips with death and to understand things we currently can't explain.

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
...It doesn't need to talk about the atomic theory or Quantum Mechanics, for it has a specific purpose which is to instruct us on something different....
Well, I would hope that it wouldn't talk about such things as Quantum Mechanics since the concept of the quantized nature of energy was first explained by Max Planck in the early 1900's (do not make me look that up for you!). I would think that the bible was written, long before humans had any concept of this, by primitive people.

... The Bible is believed because of evidence too, though...But in the Bible, does God ever demand people to believe in him with no evidence at all to back up those claims? No....
There is no evidence presented that verifies the existence of a supernatural being. Please feel free to believe what you wish. But do NOT impose your religion on the schools that I pay taxes to support. That would not be right. Teach you beliefs in your churches, not in our public schools.
That is something I have tried to drive home repeatedly on Entmoot, but everyone ignores me. I wonder why ;).
.... I'm sorry... were you saying something? :p ;) :D

Earniel

06-01-2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I like that - a moderator - moderating an admin. :D

He'll probably whack me with his little adminstick back into my proper place in the pecking order for that very soon. Oh, wait... it was only SGH who had an adminstick. Heehee... :D

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
It is true that science is believed because of evidence. The Bible is believed because of evidence too, though. In many cases, anyway. There are Christians that aren't born again yet but who believe anyway, without any sort of evidence.

But in the Bible, does God ever demand people to believe in him with no evidence at all to back up those claims? No. Paul didn't believe, and through miraculous experience, God drew him to himself. Gideon had trouble believing, and God proved himself to him through miraculous signs.

I think that's the tricksy part. Religion is based on personal experience. You believe because of the personal experience you had. However no one can have that same experience. Which means scientific methods can't analyse it properly. Science on the other hand is based on experiences that can be witnessed by more than just one and that will have each time the same outcome. Therefore science (IMO) cannot be put on the same level as religion, namely belief.

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Everyone does have access to it though, if they look for it. That is something I have tried to drive home repeatedly on Entmoot, but everyone ignores me. I wonder why .

Not everyone needs a god to believe in to be content, Lief. I believe that's something some of us are trying to drive home as well. ;)

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by EÃ¤rniel
He'll probably whack me with his little adminstick back into my proper place in the pecking order for that very soon. Oh, wait... it was only SGH who had an adminstick. Heehee... :D

HOBBIT doesn't have as much power as SGH. She keeps him in line. :)

Not everyone needs a god to believe in to be content, Lief. I believe that's something some of us are trying to drive home as well. ;)
EXACTLY

HOBBIT

06-01-2003, 04:06 PM

Bah, what are you talking about? The only thing SGH has more than me is years.... like 50 more years than me :P

Earniel is just a RPG forum mod - no power anywhere else. Do people actually go in there? :D ;) j/k... im sure people must go in there... right? :P

Earniel

06-01-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Earniel is just a RPG forum mod - no power anywhere else. Do people actually go in there? :D ;) j/k... im sure people must go in there... right? :P

I'm just not as powerhungry as some people. j/k ;) I got 'hired' because the entmoot needed a second RPG-moderator at the time. What's your excuse?:p

HOBBIT

06-01-2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by EÃ¤rniel
I'm just not as powerhungry as some people. j/k ;) I got 'hired' because the entmoot needed a second RPG-moderator at the time. What's your excuse?

I got elected by thet people of entmoot to be there president - and I was given moderator powers. I have since been promoted to admin :P

Earniel

06-01-2003, 04:12 PM

And how many people did you have to bribe for that? :p

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
I got elected by thet people of entmoot to be there president - and I was given moderator powers. I have since been promoted to admin :P
The election was rigged. :p And people were afraid to vote against you because of Ben I'm sure. :D

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 04:18 PM

WOW! Look at the spammers!!! BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Joking!

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Bah, what are you talking about? The only thing SGH has more than me is years.... like 50 more years than me :P

So you're saying that SGH is like 65 then? :D:p

Giroth

06-01-2003, 04:58 PM

LOL

cassiopeia,

I believe I have the right to speak my mind here,as everyone else does.
You can rip my belief,therefore I have the right to do the same about evolution.
Don't let my thoughts offend you.I won't let your thoughts offend me.I believe
the earth was created by God long ago,
and that we didn't all just evolve from amoebas.Period.it doesn't add up whatsoever to me,and maybe MY thoughts don't add up for you.:)

Ah,and I am not ignorant.....I have to read about evolution already.It STILL doesn't add up.More is against that theory than there is with it.

oh,but this is all MY opinion,now,isn't it?Take it or leave it,friends:)Thank you.

~Giroth

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
More is against that theory than there is with it.

What planet do u live on? Or is that just based on the people you hang out with? If I go out to Indiana - I come up with more people who support creationism. When I go to other parts of the US - more people support evolution. More scientists support evolution than those who don't.

I went to Catholic school all my life - as I have said repeatedly - and we were taught evolution in school NOT creationism.

Giroth

06-01-2003, 05:17 PM

Ah,I can see you support evolution and not creationism.And it is not my point of what
the scientists say,or what you say,
but about the past and what makes the MOStT sense.I mean,if we evolved from monkies,for one example,why are the monkies of today still monkies?And it is just silly sounding (to me,this is just MY opinion,even though I had to read all about evolution) that the scientists of today believe that all things and the universe changed from something else.it had to start somewhere.....someone HAD to create
the life.*sigh

well,I suppose the scientists don't want to base their all-around thoughts on one religion's
'theory'.Well,it's a free country;we can think as we wish,correct?:)

~Giroth

HOBBIT

06-01-2003, 05:22 PM

You can think what you wish, but you are not making any sense. Your viewpoint is exactly that of someone who knows very little about what evolution is really all about.

"to me,this is just MY opinion,even though I had to read all about evolution" I seriously doubt this.

You are ignorant about evolution - (ignorance = Lacking education or knowledge).

Will someone (maybe JD) please take his "if we came from monkies, why are there still monkies?"

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
Ah,I can see you support evolution and not creationism.And it is not my point of what
the scientists say,or what you say,
but about the past and what makes the MOStT sense.I mean,if we evolved from monkies,for one example,why are the monkies of today still monkies?

Because evolution doesn't just follow a straight path. It branches. Obviosly you must have failed if you were unable to grasp even this simple concept.

And it is just silly sounding (to me,this is just MY opinion,even though I had to read all about evolution) that the scientists of today believe that all things and the universe changed from something else.it had to start somewhere.....someone HAD to create
the life.*sigh

Why did someone have to create it? We are only made up of chemical compounds. I may believe that we were created - but not by a supernatural being. I think it is more likely that we were created by some alien race than that there is a supreme being. Humans today create various life formns - does that make us god?

well,I suppose the scientists don't want to base their all-around thoughts on one religion's
'theory'.Well,it's a free country;we can think as we wish,correct?:)

Religion doesn't have theories - it has beliefs. Creationism isn't a theory - because it has not scientific basis to it. Creationism is purely a belief.

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Will someone (maybe JD) please take his "if we came from monkies, why are there still monkies?"
I was typing my message above as you posted. I think I answered it in the simplist terms I could. :)

Giroth

06-01-2003, 05:35 PM

"Why did someone have to create it? We are only made up of chemical compounds. I may believe that we were created - but not by a supernatural being. I think it is more likely that we were created by some alien race than that there is a supreme being. Humans today create various life formns - does that make us god?"~JerseyDevil

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

alien race,hm?well,I don't want to argue about that now too:pI can grasp such comment about monkies,and branching evolution.It is just........impossible,to me,that that could happen.I laugh at evoution!hahahaaaa!!!!We are no gods.
Someone created life,period.and it couldn't be aliens......because THEY had to be created by someone as well.
*sigh............there is NO way that I can make any of you understand MY viewpoint.I am NOT stupid for not agreeing with you.You are NOT stupid for disagreeing with me.I appreciate your opinion,at least,even though you do not do the same for me.:P:P:P:P:P

Think as you will,but,in the end,I believe evoution is crazy and impossible.Period.Quote me all you want.Call me crazy all you want.That is MY belief.:)

Ah,a shame that someone such as myself would have to come in this thread with different viewpoints,eh?whahahahaaaa!!!!!!

Have a nice day,

~Giroth

HOBBIT

06-01-2003, 05:38 PM

it never ceases to amaze me that you seem less intelligent with every post ;)

but seriously, you are welcome to your beliefs....

You do realize that you are making little sense. Someone had to create aliens but no one had to create god?? um to quote you "LOL THAT MAKES NO SENSE HAAHHAHAHAHHAAHAHA I LAUGH AT CREATIONISM" oh oops i made up that last part.

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
Think as you will,but,in the end,I believe evoution is crazy and impossible.Period.Quote me all you want.Call me crazy all you want.That is MY belief.:)

And there is the point - it is your BELIEF. It has NO basis in scientific fact or study whatsoever.

Ah,a shame that someone such as myself would have to come in this thread with different viewpoints,eh?whahahahaaaa!!!!!!

A lot of people on this thread have differnt view points - you're not alone. But you say that evolution doesn't make sense to you - it seems like a lot of it is because you just don't want to understand it. I don't understand Quantum Physics or a lot of things - it doesn't mean that the people who STUDY this aren't right.

Giroth

06-01-2003, 05:42 PM

"it never ceases to amaze me that you seem less intelligent with every post"

my thoughts exactly about you,HOBBIT.......heheheh

jersey,I'm not the only one who believes it isn't true.It is the same for you.I could say it is just YOUR belief about evolution,but it isn't.:)

Do YOU realize you make no sense to me?Does that make YOU stupid?
I'll have respect for you.:)Have some for me,will you?

Besides,I'm a Christian.You could NEVER get me to believe this foolish evolution thing...oops,sorry........just my opinionLOLHAHAHAHAAAAAA

Have a nice day,

~Giroth

Sheeana

06-01-2003, 05:43 PM

Giroth, I think I've seen the light. Finally, you have provided me with concrete evidence that devolving really does happen! Thank you!

Giroth

06-01-2003, 05:46 PM

Sheeana,

that is also nonsense.I will have to drop the idea that I can talk to you the same as everyone else here.No one here understands......pity:)

Ignorance............

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
Besides,I'm a Christian.You could NEVER get me to believe this foolish evolution thing...oops,sorry........just my opinionLOLHAHAHAHAAAAAA

See that's the key problem - you're mind is closed. Science is about learning the TRUTH - not what you BELIEVE to be the truth. If evolution runs into a road block - they don't just give up - they look at why the pieces don't fit. Scientists work to DISCOVER THE TRUTH. You seem to be just happy living in the dark. I'm not - I want the truth.

Giroth

06-01-2003, 05:49 PM

It appears you want to live in the dark.You don't want to learn about MY belief,and I don't want to know anymore about yours.We have our thoughts,and that should be left at that:)

~Giroth

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
It appears you want to live in the dark.You don't want to learn about MY belief,and I don't want to know anymore about yours.We have our thoughts,and that should be left at that:)

Obviously your just spamming - because if you read - I grew up going to Catholic school. I also have many freinds who only believe in Creationism. So you are obviously the one who has the closed mind - not me. I have looked at both sides. One takes blind faith in a supreme being (which I think is as likely as the Roman and Greek gods) or trust in science which attempts to find the truth without relying on belief. I pick Science - we're after the search for truth.

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
It appears you want to live in the dark.
Giroth, I see your lights are on, but no one is home.

I will need to keep in mind that you are 14 years old and ignorant of all that is being said here. With that in mind, you asked a question about why there are still monkeys if we evolved from monkeys. We AND monkeys evolved from an earlier primate species. We are related to them through genetic makeup.

Giroth

06-01-2003, 05:56 PM

I have viewed both sides as well...but I picked the one that made the MOST sense....and IS truth,in my opinion.

Ruinel,I respect your opinion too........but
I am not ignorant.I just don't believe what you believe.It doesn't make me stupid.Or you.I won't insult you,as you are doing to me.I'm bigger than that:)

I respect your thoughts,so let that go now.:)Respect mine,and we will be just fine:D:D:D

I have to go now.

Have a nice day,no hard feelings,
~Giroth

HOBBIT

06-01-2003, 06:01 PM

you obviously are ignorant because being ingorant does not mean that you are stupid.

Ruinel

06-01-2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
I have viewed both sides as well...but I picked the one that made the MOST sense....and IS truth,in my opinion.

Ruinel,I respect your opinion too........but
I am not ignorant.I just don't believe what you believe.It doesn't make me stupid.Or you.I won't insult you,as you are doing to me.I'm bigger than that:)

I respect your thoughts,so let that go now.:)Respect mine,and we will be just fine:D:D:D

I have to go now.

Have a nice day,no hard feelings,
~Giroth
You are obviously ignorant of the word ignorant. I did not call you stupid, yet. Nor did I feel I was insulting you, yet. However, you are obviously unlearned in the theory of evolution. This is obvious in your posts. Which I understand because of your age and limited experience in this world.

No hard feelings.

jerseydevil

06-01-2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
I have viewed both sides as well...but I picked the one that made the MOST sense....and IS truth,in my opinion.
Can you believe supply me with scientific studies that support your belief?

cassiopeia

06-01-2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
LOL

cassiopeia,

I believe I have the right to speak my mind here,as everyone else does.
You can rip my belief,therefore I have the right to do the same about evolution.
Don't let my thoughts offend you.I won't let your thoughts offend me.I believe
the earth was created by God long ago,
and that we didn't all just evolve from amoebas.Period.it doesn't add up whatsoever to me,and maybe MY thoughts don't add up for you.:)

Ah,and I am not ignorant.....I have to read about evolution already.It STILL doesn't add up.More is against that theory than there is with it.

oh,but this is all MY opinion,now,isn't it?Take it or leave it,friends:)Thank you.

~Giroth
You can speak whatever you want, I really don't care. But I was merely trying to point out that if I said something like "Creationism is a load of crap" (I am NOT saying that!), many people would get offended. People don't seem to mind saying that evolution in crap. Anyway, I was only joking, you can't offend me that easily.
And, as has been said on this thread many times, if God created us, who created God?
Great, keep your opinion. I happen to think you're wrong, but you're entitled to your beliefs. And I am trying to understand your beliefs, because I'm reading this thread, and I'm trying to read the Bible. And guess (thus far) which theory I think makes the most sense. :)

Insidious Rex

06-01-2003, 11:10 PM

This child's mind is already gone people. You cant save the brain washed. Dont waste your energies. And if you succeed in popping her determined bubble of creationism she may fall far and hard and hurt herself because she has no tether of reality to keep her stable once such a blow to her faith is delivered. Leave her be.

Anyway speaking of evolution and education anyone read the latest Scientific American? Interesting stuff if you follow human evolution.

Ruinel

06-02-2003, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Anyway speaking of evolution and education anyone read the latest Scientific American? Interesting stuff if you follow human evolution.
I haven't gotten my hands on it yet. What did it say?

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 12:22 AM

Sorry guys, I was going to keep it a secret, but I cannot keep it from my loving children anymore. I am a 500 billion year old alien named Elohim aka God aka Jehova. I came over here in my spaceship a while back after my homeworld exploded and I created the world as you know it. And that, my friends, is the truth. Discuss.

Giroth

06-02-2003, 12:24 AM

I ain't brainwashed...heheheheh,I am surrounded at home by people who don't quite believe as I do.
I never said evolution was a bunch of c***,I simply said I don't believe it.I believe your wrong,you believe I'm wrong.Your obviously not educated in the Bible and MY beliefs,so we are even,yes?:D

I am not ignorant either,thank you.

So,I'll settle this here;may we respect our opinions,shake on it,
and go about our business.You can discuss this evoultion thing now between you.No hard feelings:D

Have a nice day,

~Giroth

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by Giroth
I ain't brainwashed...heheheheh,I am surrounded at home by people who don't quite believe as I do.
I never said evolution was a bunch of c***,I simply said I don't believe it.I believe your wrong,you believe I'm wrong.Your obviously not educated in the Bible and MY beliefs,so we are even,yes?:D

I am not ignorant either,thank you.

So,I'll settle this here;may we respect our opinions,shake on it,
and go about our business.You can discuss this evoultion thing now between you.No hard feelings:D

Have a nice day,

~Giroth
i disagree. a lot of us ARE familiar with the bible - former christians and jews - and current ones that also believe in evolution. You, on the other hand, are not very familiar with evolution.

Giroth

06-02-2003, 12:30 AM

.....alright.I can start again,but what is the point?Besides,I was just trying to make well.I don't feel like arguing anymore,so I want to leave it here.End it in a mature matter,is what I mean.:)Is it all good now?

~Giroth

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 12:32 AM

I'm serious though. I dare any of you to disprove what I just said. You can't. You can only say "i don't believe you."

And yes, being an all powerful being, do respect your beliefs.

Giroth

06-02-2003, 12:33 AM

alright.I DON"T believe you:)
Is it forgotten?

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Giroth
alright.I believe you:)
Is it forgotten?

ok, you believe that I am god? Without any proof?

Ruinel

06-02-2003, 12:36 AM

*bows to the mighty Elohim* LOL! Oh, that is rich!

jerseydevil

06-02-2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by Giroth
alright.I believe you:)
Is it forgotten?
Why would you so easily say you believe what Hobbit just said - which no one can prove one way or another - and yet refuse to believe what science is discovering? Evolution is far more plausible than Hobbit being a 500 year old alien.

Giroth

06-02-2003, 12:39 AM

LOL HOBBIT<you didn't say you were god
in your post I said 'I believed you" in.Besides,I just wanted things to end here........:D:D:DLOL I didn't really believe you........I just wanted you to.......drop it......:D

Did you yet?

Oh,and DON"T question MY belief.......heheheh:D :D :p

RÃan

06-02-2003, 02:03 AM

Y'know, someone mentioned "devolving" - well, I would say the manners on this thread are certainly "devolving" - would an admin or mod please speak up *coughHOBBITcough* with a timely reminder for people to stay polite and considerate?

RÃan

06-02-2003, 02:10 AM

BTW, I've said many times on this thread, out of consideration of the people that believe in evolution, that I believe that there are many sincere and intelligent scientists that think that the theory of evolution is the best answer to the question of how things got to where they are today. I really believe that, and I just as sincerely believe that they are wrong, but I've made a point to say that I believe they are intelligent and sincere (which I DO believe), many times, out of respect for the posters here. I've really made an effort to keep my language and manner respectful and considerate.

Are there any of you people out there, that believe that the theory of evolution is the best fit, who are willing to say the same about the fully qualified scientists that believe that creationism is the best fit? Or do you really and sincerely believe that all of the scientists that believe that creationism/CBID is the best fit just completely and with deceitful intentions throw out all their scientific training and logic?

cassiopeia

06-02-2003, 02:48 AM

Rian (or anybody else), do you have any links that has scientists' reasons for believing in creationism? I would like to read some of thier views before I answer your question. I can't comprehend the scientific logic behind thier views, when so much evidence points to evolution.

BTW, Giroth, you said: "Think as you will...........but evolution is, in my opinion, foolish,incomplete,nonsense,
and crud." I'm dreadfully sorry for thinking that you thought evolution was a load of crap. Please accept my apologies.

Sheeana

06-02-2003, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Sheeana
Giroth, I think I've seen the light. Finally, you have provided me with concrete evidence that devolving really does happen! Thank you!
Originally posted by Giroth
Sheeana,

that is also nonsense.I will have to drop the idea that I can talk to you the same as everyone else here.No one here understands......pity:)

Ignorance............

Obviously you don't have a sense of irony. Do I need to point out here that there's no such thing as devolving? :rolleyes:

RÃan

06-02-2003, 10:30 AM

I knew it was a joke, and my "devolving" comment was NOT aimed at you in particular, Sheeana. It was a general comment after re-scanning thru the last several pages of the thread. I wanted to put in a bit of humor by using the "devolving" manners phrase, but I really think that we could step up the consideration level here and it would be better for everyone.

There's no evidence for devolving, huh? And it is NOT part of the th. of evolution, right? OK, that's fine, the scientists feel that it is NOT a logical inference, then.

There is also no evidence for macro evolution, is there? However, the scientists feel that that is a logical inference. That's fine, too, I"m sure they're very smart, but let's please just not go around saying inaccurate, overbroad things like "evolution is scientifically proved".

RÃan

06-02-2003, 10:33 AM

I'll dig up some links for you, cass. Thanks for considering my question :)

Lizra

06-02-2003, 10:33 AM

The use of the word "Brainwashed" was brilliant IR! Thank you! For the first time (in all these religion threads) I now begin to understand why many otherwise intelligent people believe this stuff. (IMO) Brainwashed by family from day one, brainwashed by the church, and/or brainwashed by the strong desire to unload life's burdens and enjoy the "perks" (not worrying about things anymore..."It's Gods will", afterlife in total ectasy ...heaven, knowing you are special....and other goodies I'm sure! ;) ) that religion has to offer. Whew! I get it! :)

jerseydevil

06-02-2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Are there any of you people out there, that believe that the theory of evolution is the best fit, who are willing to say the same about the fully qualified scientists that believe that creationism is the best fit? Or do you really and sincerely believe that all of the scientists that believe that creationism/CBID is the best fit just completely and with deceitful intentions throw out all their scientific training and logic?
Like I said before - belief is not science - and unless a scientist can prove that their is a higher being - then it would be impossible to prove Intelligent Design or creationism. Scientists NEED to leave their religious beliefs at the lab door. When they do their study - god can NOT be part of the equation.

I can believe anything I want and no one can really prove I'm wrong - so what would make my "science" any more accurate than theirs? Like I said previously - I can say that life on earth was a failed 3rd grade alien science project - you can't prove that to be wrong or right. That could be "Intelligent Design" The only thing science can do is say how we have developed - based on discoveries and observations.

Draken

06-02-2003, 11:57 AM

This one still going?

Look folks, it's pointless!

Religion is about nailing your colours to an accepted teaching and interpreting the world in that light. Any interpretation of that teaching that differs from yours is, let's be honest about this, wrong, in your eyes. Any explanation of what we see around us that differs from your interpretation of this teaching is also wrong.

Science is about explaining what we see around us in the light of the evidence we have. Theories can be proposed that fit that evidence, but as soon as evidence disproves the theory it must be amended or replaced. There is no unquestioned Original Text to refer back to in science: next year's Hubble constant might not be the same as this year's, and the next fossil find might dismantle some cherished dinosaur theory or another.

Religion is inward looking, needing no new evidence because all wisdom is ultimately derived from a historic source. Science is outward looking, unafraid of new data because it recognises no unquestionable received wisdom.

Time spent debating this is time wasted. Any evidence that disagrees with a religious view of the universe will be questioned, any evidence that further supports that evidence will be questioned in turn. So we can see that not only must evolution be thrown into doubt, so must anything that supports it - carbon dating, plate tectonics, rock formation, climatology, palaeontology, etc, etc. From the basic premise that evolution theory is entirely wrong because one intrepretation of one religious text says it is wrong, one must go on to unravel much of science's discoveries of the last century or so.

That some scientists subscribe to Creationism is irrelevant. I met an electrical engineer once who didn't understand much about his job. Does that mean that electrical engineers as a profession are flawed? No, it means there are good ones and bad ones, as is the nature of all professions. There have been bad scientists for as long as there has been science, that some now call themselves Creationists changes nothing.

More interesting to me is why this fear of data, of an explorative and inquisitive mindset, is so prevalent (almost exclusively in the developed world, as far as I know) in the USA - especially it seems in those rectangular shaped states. Maybe drawing borders with rulers from an early age inhibits the development of the mind? Someone should do a comparative study with a really crinkly-edged country like Norway!

Still, fun though it is watching a chunk of the current Super Duper Power sliding into an intellectual Dark Age, not my problem and I've better things to be doing.

Have fun everyone!

RÃan

06-02-2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I agree there will always be something else to LEARN, but your beliefs don't require further learning - all you have to do is just stop and say "God did it" and be done with it. Whatever isn't understood is god. It has been that way since man has been on earth. It used to be believed that solar eclipses were caused by the gods anger too or that the reason a city was rocked by a volcano was because the gods were angry. I don't see much difference in the mythical being that modern Christianity or any other religion today believes in - than what the people in ancient civilisations believed in.
Wrong. When transitional forms were not found in the fossil record, was the basic premise behind the th. of ev. thrown out? No, some of the parts in the theory were adjusted. (and it doesn't matter that transitional forms are not being really looked for today - the important thing is that they WERE being looked for at one point, and when they weren't found, the basic premise behind the theory WAS NOT THROWN OUT!)

Same way with the creation model. The basic premise is that an intelligent being created the world and all that's in it. Given this, they expect to see certain things. If the things are NOT seen, then some of the premises in the theory can be changed, but the underlying premise is still considered to be valid. SAME MECHANISM FOR BOTH THEORIES.

That's good. But where is religion trying to find the truth? The key aspect of religion is to have belief and not to question. The main point of science it to question. Without questioning - people would still think you'd fall of the face of the earth or that the earth was the center of everything. Religion was FORCED to accept these things because they had no choice. Now they are coming to terms with evolution - but they still need to fit god in there or else it destroys the whole belief system. I'm sorry - I just don't believe in a mythical being that controls or created everything. There is a logical and scientific explanation of why we are here and where everything came from and I just want to search for the truth.
Honestly, where do you guys get this thing about the key aspect of religion being to not question? That's why I'm discussing so many questions on the "Offshoot" thread - because I've thought of questions and thought them through!!

I think where your problem comes from is when the church - INAPPROPRIATELY, IMO - tries to dictate scientific thought. I think they overstepped their bounds in this area in the past.

No - I just think that you are a religious person that has strong beliefs. I don't think you are really into searching for the TRUTH though - I think you just want the information that supports your established beliefs.
And your established belief is that evolution is the best fit. Mine is that creationism is the best fit. Your last sentence fits both of us. I'm all for gathering of scientific data. What I'm AGAINST is saying all-out that a certain INTERPRETATION is the only valid one. I have no problem with people saying that they believe a certain interpretation to be the BEST one; it's when they say it's PROVEN that it bugs me.

The CABLE station came afterward and is relatively brand new (with digital cable). Discover magazine has been around A LOT longer. Obviously you know nothing abotu Discover Magazine and just quickly glanced at the website and assumed it was a tv show. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, then, I was completely wrong here. (note that I don't mind admitting when I"m wrong - however, I'm ASSUMING that you're telling the truth, I'm not checking it myself :) ).

Talk about being condescending. :rolleyes:
What was concescending about saying that I believed that I had more of a scientific background than you did? I'm sorry if you thought I was being condescending; I certainly was not intending to be condescending at all. That's the problem with talking about an emotionally charged subject by typing! (i.e., you can't see facial expressions, hear tone of voice, etc.)

I was reacting defensively to what I thought was an insult by you - suggesting that I read a magazine that I incorrectly thought was spawned off of a tv show (though often a very good one, IMO) to get some information. I wanted to point out that I have indeed had some scientific training, and my guess is I've had more than many people on the Moot (1 year of university level physics and chemistry, for PHYSICS MAJORS (as opposed to, say, courses like "Physics for Business Majors") :D. I switched to computers after 1 year, but took a few more chem classes, and lots of math and statistics (I was a Math minor). )

RÃan

06-02-2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Draken
That some scientists subscribe to Creationism is irrelevant. I met an electrical engineer once who didn't understand much about his job. Does that mean that electrical engineers as a profession are flawed? No, it means there are good ones and bad ones, as is the nature of all professions. There have been bad scientists for as long as there has been science, that some now call themselves Creationists changes nothing.
Exactly my point, Draken - I never said that ALL scientists that believe that creationism is the best model were good - I think that some are and some aren't, EXACTLY like th. of ev. scientists.

And I have no "fear of data" or objections to "an explorative and inquisitive mindset". I think many evolutionists do, however, as well as many creationists.

jerseydevil

06-02-2003, 12:16 PM

RÃan

06-02-2003, 12:23 PM

I made some clarifications in my long post addressing your points, JD - if you read it already, would you please re-read it if you want to address it? I'm done now. Thanks.

jerseydevil

06-02-2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Exactly my point, Draken - I never said that ALL scientists that believe that creationism is the best model were good - I think that some are and some aren't, EXACTLY like th. of ev. scientists.

And I have no "fear of data" or objections to "an explorative and inquisitive mindset". I think many evolutionists do, however, as well as many creationists.
My argument is that god has no place in science. You can't have creationism or Intelligent design without god. Therefore those theories are completely based on beliefs - not science.

ALL scientists should be looking for is the truth and completely ignore the question of whether there is a god or not. Science should NOT suppose there is a god (thus creating things) nor should they suppose that there isn't a god.

Artanis

06-02-2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Draken
More interesting to me is why this fear of data, of an explorative and inquisitive mindset, is so prevalent (almost exclusively in the developed world, as far as I know) in the USA - especially it seems in those rectangular shaped states. Maybe drawing borders with rulers from an early age inhibits the development of the mind? Someone should do a comparative study with a really crinkly-edged country like Norway!Haha! I pop in on this thread occasionally and read some posts, and this one caught my eye! :p Well I don't know about these rectangular shaped states, but I assure you, there are religious people of all kinds in Norway too. Heck, we have the Norwegian Lutheran State Church, and the Prime Minister is from the Christian Democratic Party. He didn't get there by chance! The church is not the big landowner as it was before, but the state still appoints the bishops and higher clergy.

Both religion and evolution are taught in school, which I think is fine. I'm not a Christian myself, I did not marry in church and none of my children are baptised. Still our society stands on Christian moral ground, and Christianity has played an important role in the history of our country. I'm glad my children get to learn about religion, because it helps them to understand other people better and gives them the basic knowledge so they can choose what to believe themselves when they're old enough. I could only wish there would be more room in school for other religions than the Lutheran, like Catholisism and Islam, which are the largest religious minorities here.

No Draken, I don't think this is pointless. I'm thankful that this thread exists, and I like reading the posts here, the only reason I don't read all of them is simply that time is too short. Though it seems clear that no one here will change their mind about evolution/creation, it's still interesting to read your responses. I'm thankful for all of you who use much of your time to produce all this stuff. :)

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 03:38 PM

We can debate this all we want, but the fact is is that evolution IS SCIENCE and the Creation is a BELIEF. In public schools, evolution with ALWAYS BE TAUGHT - as a theory of course, no one ever dropped the theory - until a new better theory is made. Creation will NEVER be taught in the public school science classroom (unless you have an insane teacher that is). It only has a place in private and/or religious schools, mythology classes.

That is it. Period. End of story. Why is this still going on?

Gwaimir Windgem

06-02-2003, 05:02 PM

Have you ever heard of discussion??? Yeesh, are people not allowed to voice opinions, and to just talk about something for the sake of talking about it anymore, Stalin? :rolleyes:

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 05:04 PM

You are welcomed to debate what i just said. but what is more simple than creation = belief, religion , no science, not taught in public schools
evolution = science.

I'm NOT SAYING that you AGREE with evolution, just that it IS science by the definition and that Creation (which is ONLY a belief) is not................... are there any of you here who believe that creation should be tauhght i a modern SCIENCE class?

There really is no room to debate this stuff.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-02-2003, 05:12 PM

Of course you're not saying we agree with evolution. You're saying that we should not debate, as the matter is quite simple and resolved, from your point of view.

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 05:15 PM

You can debate the details of evolution all you want.

The topic is
"SHOULD EVOLUTION BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL"
The obvious answer YES - unless you are against science. This can be debated all you want.

By the definition of science, the theory of evolution IS science, IS the current best theory, and IS being taught and will continue to be taught? This is a fact people.

Creation by intelligent design is NOT science, it does not belong in a SCIENCE classroom.

Sure, maybe there is a God, but he should not be taught about in school - .

Cirdan

06-02-2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Artanis
Both religion and evolution are taught in school, which I think is fine.

Artanis, are they taught in the same class (curriculum)?

In the US they is a big deal about separation of church and state. I don't really understand not being able to teach about it, though: Just not in a science curriculum.

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 05:18 PM

Oh well, *sigh*

I said this stuff should not be debated...but it obviously is being debated for some unknown reason....

why SHOULDN'T it be taught in schools in what I'd like to change the topic to. :P anyone care to discuss.

Go ahead, debate to your hearts content folks. btw, entmoot is not a democracy ;).

Gwaimir Windgem

06-02-2003, 05:19 PM

By the definition of science, the theory of evolution IS science, IS the current best theory, and IS being taught and will continue to be taught?

But you see, it isn't taught as a theory. From all of my experience, it's taught as a fact.

Sure, maybe there is a God, but he should not be taught about in school - .

That's very interesting. Why do you say that?

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
But you see, it isn't taught as a theory. From all of my experience, it's taught as a fact.[/qupte]

[quote]That's very interesting. Why do you say that?

Why is that very interesting. How is a supreme being science by any definition? It isn't. It is pure belief. It MAY BE RIGHT. BUt it is not science. even in the CATHOLIC schools around here, creation is taught in RELIGIOUS CLASS, and evolution in SCIENCE CLASS.

There is something here that we call separation of church and state and the freedom to choose our religion - therefore god cannot be taught in public schools. Historically, different religions and their origins are taught in HISTORY CLASS, but they are NOT PREACHED. Certainly creation myths belong in a mythological studies class or religious studies class - those things do not exist here, so oh well. We are not ignorant to religion as most of us were raised either christian or jewish and we were FORCED AGAINST OUR WILL to go to religious school... and also we learn historically the viewpoints of the religions.

Why do you believe fiction should be taught in school? (in reference to god - of course fiction literature is great :P)

Gwaimir Windgem

06-02-2003, 05:44 PM

Ah, I see, when you said "in school", you meant "in science class". Naturally, I do agree with that, although I think that creation should be presented as an alternative. But Creationism hasn't had as many scientists trying to make it viable as Evolution has, so it's obviously not as well developed, and thusly would and should not be taught as evolution. Of course, that's assuming that evolutionists didn't believe in automatically dismissing the beliefs of others as unworthy of even a passing glance, and an idiotic idea held only be superstitious fools. :p

We are not ignorant to religion as most of us were raised either christian or jewish and we were FORCED AGAINST OUR WILL to go to religious school... and also we learn historically the viewpoints of the religions.

This does not necessarily constitute knowing your religion very well. Do you know how many people there are who were raised Christian (many of whom still are, or at the least consider themselves to be Christian), who don't know if Psalms is in the Old Testament or the new? The ignorance of Christianity among Christians is astonishing.

And by the way, that fiction bit was probably the most obvious bait I've ever seen. :)

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 05:48 PM

ah, well i do agree with you with some things.

Creation SHOULD be an alternative - but it is the parents job to teach that whether it be just telling them or making them go to religious school. It is not the job of the public school and really cannot legally teach it.

Kids should have a choice and make a choice for themselves based on what makes sense to THEM. Not the duty of the public school though.

I respect your other opinions.

Sorry about the bait there :P Its just my opinion though. Try not to get too offended ;)

edit: ah GW, i accidently put this part of my post in response to you in the quote box, so maybe you didn;t see it : "no not really, look at any science text book. It is taught as any other theory is taught - just like gravity, etc. In front of every theory there is no disclaimer: "warning this is only a theory and is only our best explanation that this time" that would be rediculous and you would be reading that a whole lot. You just KNOW its a theory. NOTHING in science is taught as solid fact."

RÃ¡na EressÃ«a

06-02-2003, 05:49 PM

Because religious people think Creationism is fact and argue it as so. That's why they want it taught in schools.

Earniel

06-02-2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
But Creationism hasn't had as many scientists trying to make it viable as Evolution has, so it's obviously not as well developed, and thusly would and should not be taught as evolution. Of course, that's assuming that evolutionists didn't believe in automatically dismissing the beliefs of others as unworthy of even a passing glance, and an idiotic idea held only be superstitious fools.

In my experience creationism is bits taken from evolution to fitted together to justify the Bible and gods. The science (as far as creationism has it) has it's place in science classes where it would probably have been taught regardless of creationism. The religious aspects have IMO little place in science classes but should be taught in religionclasses.

Artanis

06-02-2003, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
Artanis, are they taught in the same class (curriculum)?No, but both subjects are mandatory until the children/youths are 16 (I'm not sure about the corresponding level of education in your school system), and those who choose scientific studies the next 3 years must also follow classes where religion is taught. Then, at the age of 19, you'll reach university level where religion is no longer mandatory.
Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
But you see, it isn't taught as a theory. From all of my experience, it's taught as a fact.Well, until very recently, Christianity was also taught as a fact, at least here in Norway. But it really doesn't bother me whether creation/evolution are taught as a fact or not, as long as both are taught. When the children grow up, they'll start questioning things, and they'll form their own opinion. But to be able to form that opinion, they need knowledge on both subjects, and that's what the schools should be able to give them.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-02-2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
1) Sorry about the bait there :P Its just my opinion though. Try not to get too offended ;)

2) edit: ah GW, i accidently put this part of my post in response to you in the quote box, so maybe you didn;t see it : "no not really, look at any science text book. It is taught as any other theory is taught - just like gravity, etc. In front of every theory there is no disclaimer: "warning this is only a theory and is only our best explanation that this time" that would be rediculous and you would be reading that a whole lot. You just KNOW its a theory. NOTHING in science is taught as solid fact."

1) Think nothing of it, I didn't take any offense. :)

2) In the text books, perhaps, but my experience has been that the teachers treat it as fact, and almost as history.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-02-2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Artanis
Well, until very recently, Christianity was also taught as a fact, at least here in Norway. But it really doesn't bother me whether creation/evolution are taught as a fact or not, as long as both are taught. When the children grow up, they'll start questioning things, and they'll form their own opinion. But to be able to form that opinion, they need knowledge on both subjects, and that's what the schools should be able to give them.

I completely agree. :)

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 06:09 PM

well, usually science tecahers are either really nice great teachers, jerks, plain stupid, or completely insane. Sometimes a combination.

Why is it the school's responsibility? plus, legally, here in the us they really can't teach religion except from a historical veiwpoint. Besides, we are very diversified here. In my school, there must be AT LEAST 5 different religions, maybe more. You CANNOT teach the Jewish, Christian (although practically the same exact thing i think), Muslim (same thing?), Hindu (differnt), other Indian myths and creation stories, budhist theory, other theories, etc. Historically i have no problem with any religion being taught... but the other stuff is for religious school.

Artanis

06-02-2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Why is it the school's responsibility?Well you can't leave it to the parents. I could not give my children sufficient knowledge about Christianity, I've forgotten much of what I've learned. And I don't know much about other religions. I think school is a natural place for the children to learn about these things.Besides, we are very diversified here. In my school, there must be AT LEAST 5 different religions, maybe more. You CANNOT teach the Jewish, Christian (although practically the same exact thing i think), Muslim (same thing?), Hindu (differnt), other Indian myths and creation stories, budhist theory, other theories, etc.I admit you have a problem there. It takes too much time to go into each of these in depth. But I think it is a pre to have at least basic knowledge of the most important religions in the world. Religion is extremely important in every level of society, it does play an important role in everyday life of billions of people, it does have a strong impact on history and politics. I do think it's vital to understand the religious motives behind people's actions.
Historically i have no problem with any religion being taught... but the other stuff is for religious school.If you by 'other stuff' mean preaching, I would agree with you.

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 09:30 PM

Well you can't leave it to the parents. I could not give my children sufficient knowledge about Christianity, I've forgotten much of what I've learned. And I don't know much about other religions. I think school is a natural place for the children to learn about these things.

Eh well i meant either the parents teach the religion themselves or/and take care of the teaching. What I mean by that is send the kid to religious school. Practically all the Jewish kids here went to regular school and then we had a two hour hewbrew i think twice a week. Of course I quit the second I could. All the christian kids that I know went or still go to CCD (i guess that is the hebrew school equivalent).

Are you saying that it is the PUBLIC school's job? OF COURSE IT IS NOT. It is the PARENT's job to send their kid to either a private school that includes religion or a separate religious school. OR if they want they can raise their kids atheists - whatever - im just saying if they want to introduce some religion.

So in what way should religion be taught in public schools? And if there is to be no preaching, what good would it do anyway?

Ruinel

06-02-2003, 09:47 PM

Religion and religious teachings should always been kept in its proper setting, as either a history of religion class, or as a religious education class as part of a faith church/synagogue/mosque. And not taught at the expense of taxpayers.

Sheeana

06-02-2003, 10:54 PM

I disagree. Cultural evolution is just as interesting, and important as the biological side of it. I believe that it is important to cover all the bases, not just the science of our development, but also the history - and I believe that a study of the modern forms of religion would fit quite well in a social studies, or history class.

HOBBIT

06-02-2003, 10:58 PM

You disagree with who?

I said that it should and is taught in history - also runiel as well. I took world history this year - we learned about budhists, christians, jews, greek, roman, indian religions - and many other religions and other ways of thinking and living. We learned historically about the start of the christian faith and obviously about the byzantine empire, etc. We also learned a lot about Muslims. We also studied in detail the many reformations and the protestant movement and other sects.

Basically we covered a lot of the bases of MANY religions concerning the hsitory behind it and what exaclty they believe. Just NO preaching what-so-ever. It is not being taught that any of the religions are right.

Sheeana

06-02-2003, 11:11 PM

I was disagreeing with Ruinel, because she stated that it should be confined to private instituations, and not at the expense of the tax-payer. I think that it should be in public schools because our history, and cultural development is just as important as the biology of our development.

Ruinel

06-02-2003, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by Sheeana
I disagree. Cultural evolution is just as interesting, and important as the biological side of it. I believe that it is important to cover all the bases, not just the science of our development, but also the history - and I believe that a study of the modern forms of religion would fit quite well in a social studies, or history class.
Sorry for the confusion, I meant ... as a history class (including different religions) in public institutions. I don't mind my tax dollars going to that.

But I agree that a sociology class might also be appropriate, as well as a social studies class. :)

I also agree with Hobbit, no preaching allowed. :D

Sheeana

06-03-2003, 01:00 AM

Do you mean to tell me that I got on my soap box for nothing. *deflated look* Oh well, it was time for my annual bath anyway. Now where did I put my rubber chicken? :confused:

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 01:04 AM

Heh heh heh. Beautifully said, BoP. :D

Artanis

06-03-2003, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Basically we covered a lot of the bases of MANY religions concerning the hsitory behind it and what exaclty they believe. Just NO preaching what-so-ever. It is not being taught that any of the religions are right. Yes. That's exactly what I want in public schools. What do people believe and why, and the historical background. No preaching, no bias.

Ruinel

06-03-2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Sheeana
Do you mean to tell me that I got on my soap box for nothing. *deflated look* Oh well, it was time for my annual bath anyway. Now where did I put my rubber chicken? :confused:
Oh... sorry. I think it was my fault. I read it again and I do not think I was as clear as I should have been. But it was still nice to read you reply. :)

I do not, however, think that there should be group prayer in school unless it is part of a religious extracurricular group. And not during announcements nor during class time. That I am opposed to. :) However, I think students shouldn't be prevented from practicing their religion. If a group of Christian students (or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddist, or Jew) got together and held a group prayer before class ("oh lord, please help me pass my bio exam today, for I did not study" -j/k) or during lunch or afterschool, I think that should not be interfered with. (Ok... if you disagree, you can get back on your soap box now. ;) :D )

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
However, I think students shouldn't be prevented from practicing their religion.

You really are nice to us, aren't you? ;)

Giroth

06-03-2003, 03:47 PM

Hey all,

Just wanted to say that I guess it is all a matter of opinion.(oh,and I never said,cassi,that evoution was c***.....)

Both Christianity
and evoution have many followers,SOME evidence,
and both make sense in their own ways.
So,there you go:D:D:D

~Giroth

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 05:02 PM

You mean CREATIONISM and Evolution. Evolution is not necessarily contradictory to Christianity; I believe that God created mankind, and the heavens, and the earth. But I believe that he must have created them SOME way, and that it might have been evolution. I just personally learn towards Creation, because as Rian said, it seems to me to fit more with Him. :)

HOBBIT

06-03-2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
Hey all,

Just wanted to say that I guess it is all a matter of opinion.(oh,and I never said,cassi,that evoution was c***.....)

Both Christianity
and evoution have many followers,SOME evidence,
and both make sense in their own ways.
So,there you go:D:D:D

~Giroth

no, you are very wrong. what evidence is there for creation other than everything is here and we don't know why, therefore some supreme being created them. Thats it. That is not evidence. and don't you mean CREATION not christianity. There are like hundreds of creation myths that ARE JUST AS VALID as the 7 days story.

And there is not SOME, there is A LOT of evidence for evolution.

but you are welcome to your opinion....

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
no, you are very wrong. what evidence is there for creation other than everything is here and we don't know why, therefore some supreme being created them. 1) Thats it.

2)but you are welcome to your opinion....

1) No, there's more than that. But I don't really specialise in it, so I don't know it well.

2) Wow, all of you atheists are just SO NICE to us theists....;)

HOBBIT

06-03-2003, 07:08 PM

well, that is our nature :P

btw, i consider myself to be an athiest jew ;) i dont wanna hear any arguments. basically i believe whatever i want to but i still keep some ties to judiasm - im not completely godless - just not very religious and stuff :P.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 07:18 PM

I would agree, except for the godless part. Someone who does not believe in the supernatural cannot very well be anything BUT godless, I would think...:confused:

Ruinel

06-03-2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) No, there's more than that. But I don't really specialise in it, so I don't know it well.

2) Wow, all of you atheists are just SO NICE to us theists....;)
1) don't you think you should investigate this evidence rather than to believe it without knowing all the facts?

2) Yes... we like to think so. ;)

Hobbit, I'm not sure what you mean by 'atheist jew', but hmmm.. ok.

HOBBIT

06-03-2003, 07:26 PM

what i mean by it is i havent said "ok, im not jewish anymore" I sitll consider myself jewish - i just don't believe in all of it. i have several friends who also consider themselves this way. if people ask what religion i am i will still say jewish... im just not very religious and i don't really believe in any of the god stuff. i still have a cedar every year, celebrate hanukah, go to bar-bat mitzvahs , and im forced to go to temple like twice a year.

Why throw out my upbringing completely? just mostly, as you can probably tell from my posts. basically around bar mitzvah time (and before that) it occurred to me "none of this really makes any sense," but oh well :P

GW - it seems like you just believe that there is more evidence - can you tell me just TWO more things other than what i stated in my earlier post?

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 07:29 PM

1) Ditto to you and HOBBIT. :p

A Jew is not an adherent of Judaism; I've heard the term defined as a member of as a NATION, kind of an extended family.

HOBBIT

06-03-2003, 07:31 PM

yeah - kind of like that GW.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
what i mean by it is i havent said "ok, im not jewish anymore" I sitll consider myself jewish - i just don't believe in all of it. i have several friends who also consider themselves this way. if people ask what religion i am i will still say jewish... im just not very religious and i don't really believe in any of the god stuff. i still have a cedar every year, celebrate hanukah, go to bar-bat mitzvahs , and im forced to go to temple like twice a year.

Why throw out my upbringing completely? just mostly, as you can probably tell from my posts. basically around bar mitzvah time (and before that) it occurred to me "none of this really makes any sense," but oh well :P

GW - it seems like you just believe that there is more evidence - can you tell me just TWO more things other than what i stated in my earlier post?

As I said before, I don't study it. I've heard it before, presented quite well, but it's not my specialty, so I don't really know much about it. It doesn't stay in my brain very long. :p

I would say not Jewish by religion, as Judaism is a theistic, and monotheistic religion. But a Jew by history, and culture, perhaps.

Ruinel

06-03-2003, 07:36 PM

Gwai, as for the evidence, it has already been presented here and can easily be accessed through the web. I see no reason to repost my statements, or others. However, I haven't seen any evidence other than "says so in the bible" to help your side. hmmm... and you don't know any. hmmmm... well, we are stumped then.

Theory of Creationism - believe it without physical evidence.
Theory of Evolution - believe all the compounding evidence.

Hobbit, thanks for explaining. :)

gollum9630

06-03-2003, 07:40 PM

at my school, which is Catholic, we are taught, in are christian ed. class, that the story of creation should not be taken seriously, but only give us the idea that God created everything. We are also taught evolution, and told it is true

HOBBIT

06-03-2003, 07:53 PM

GW, as Runiel has said many people, included us have posted various evidence of evolution. It is all over. And yet - there has been no evidence for creation posted other than "in the bible" and "must have created the world due to no other explanation" and other variations on that.

Here is a thought: if you know that you have seen "evidence" supporting creation by intelligent design, get off your lazy bum and go search for it on the net and then post it here! It is not our job to go search for it. You want to convince us, you get it.

All you are saying is "i believe there is evidence to support creation - but i don't know any, but take my word for it" We like you and all, but we need some evidence.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 08:28 PM

I didn't mean for evolution; I meant if your going to tell me that I have to know everything about creation science, then you should learn about the other side before you totally dismiss it as unworthy of your advanced minds. I say again, I do not discount the possibility of Evolution; I merely lean more towards creation.

1) Here is a thought: if you know that you have seen "evidence" supporting creation by intelligent design, get off your lazy bum and go search for it on the net and then post it here! It is not our job to go search for it. You want to convince us, you get it.

2) All you are saying is "i believe there is evidence to support creation - but i don't know any, but take my word for it" We like you and all, but we need some evidence.

1) Ye gods! Just because you're an admin doesn't give you the right to tell me what to do! :rolleyes: Like I said before, I'm not even solid on it. It would completely ridiculous for me to try to convince you of it, as I myself only LEAN towards it. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really matter one way or the other. I could believe either one, I merely have leanings towards the one. Now I'm lazy, because I don't spend my time in matters which to me are unimportant?

2) I do not expect you to take my word for it. There has been a good deal of personal evidence from various people that there is a God, but such accounts are not believed, and written off to the ravings of madmen or the delusional, proof of idiocy convincing itself of something it wants to be true, or just flat out lies. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Any evidence which is against the present theory of evolution or for the existence of God is automatically discarded.

Thank you gollum, you have provided proof that evolution is NOT taught as a theory, but as a fact. :)

gollum9630

06-03-2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Thank you gollum, you have provided proof that evolution is NOT taught as a theory, but as a fact. :)

anytime:D

HOBBIT

06-03-2003, 09:09 PM

ah well, I have all the "evidence" for creation that i need in the "creation science" topic by quickbeam from 2000. Too bad i never took part in that topic, although i did read it. I can barely understand some of it.... :P this topic does not have ppl like juntel and QB. Now there are some REAAAALY LOOONG POSTS that make rian's look like little stories :P

Where is Juntel when you need him? That man is a genius!

I'm wondering if I should repost his brilliant "Matrix Religion" post.

You can find it in the archives.

HOBBIT

06-03-2003, 09:18 PM

I'm just saying that people that believe in creation by intelligent design are not aruging their points anywhere near as well people were in the original topic - not that you guys aren't doing a good job.

It didn't really matter though, because Juntel disproved everything they said by logically destroying every little point and he humiliated most creationists into leaving the moot :P.

GW - I was merely suggested that you stop being so lazy and actually back your statements up - not that I really am, but I don't need to - everyone else is doing that for me :P

If it is really that unimportant to you, why post that there is evidence for creation, when there really is no evidence for this? If you have seen it, and care enough to post it - why not care enough to at least provide us with one link? Oh well. I don't really care.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-03-2003, 09:21 PM

Neither do I. :) Don't really see any point in it, as, as I said before, all evidence which points away from the current scientific viewpoint (no God and evolution) is ignored, or talked around. Would just be a waste of time, I think. :) Besides, as I said before, I'm not solid at all on creation, it's just what I'm leaning towards.

HOBBIT

06-03-2003, 09:28 PM

Yes, but there has been a lot of evidence for evolution in this topic and no real "evidence" for creation IN THIS TOPIC that I have seen - hey its over 800 posts.

That is the difference - why repeat what has been said IN THIS TOPIC. And yet - there has been no posted proof of creation.

Oh well.

RÃan

06-04-2003, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
All you are saying is "i believe there is evidence to support creation - but i don't know any, but take my word for it" We like you and all, but we need some evidence.
Sorry, I really have been tied up with hostess duties with my in-laws over, but they are now back home, and I'll get a couple of links for you guys (I don't keep track of them, so I'll just have to re-find them).

I'll post them hopefully tonite (I haven't forgotten, Cass!), but "fer shure" by tomorrow. Again, sorry for my slowness.

RÃan

06-04-2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
,,,Now there are some REAAAALY LOOONG POSTS that make rian's look like little stories :P ....
*just noticed this*

Hey, I guess I have a reputation!

I have actually bumped up against the post limit before, but what I do now is purposefully break them up into several sub-posts, because it's easier to read that way. And since I found out that Sheeana likes them that way, I'll keep it up :)

And now, just to uphold my reputation :D, I'm going to provide some background info before I provide the links...

*warms up fingers for some major typing*

And actually, I'm going to start by re-posting my last post from when the last go-round ended late last year:

NOTE - the following post is a copy of my last post from the last go-round of this thread, which ended late last year.
I'm reposting it so the people that are on this go-round that didn't see it, can see it! And the only reason I asked to not be quoted at that time was because I wasn't going to be around to defend it. Please feel free to quote any part of any post of mine now. :)

RÃan

06-04-2003, 12:14 AM

**before reading, please read note above**

Well, since my proposal:

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Now if you admit that it is a reasonable premise (creation by intelligent design) that a reasonable person might come up with by observing his/her environment, then I will give some details. Fair enough?

Was met by the following:
by Cirdan
It's a bit off topic but that's no crime. As long as your not proposing it be taught in schools, I'm fine with it.

and

by Jerseydevil
The problem is is that Inteligent Design is a term that was just coined to get creationism taught in the classrooms. If people can convince schools that it is a valid theory - even if none of it is based on scientific study - then they'll be happy.

then I guess I will now say my FINAL goodbye to this thread. I suppose I was just very naive to think that perhaps if presented with logical ideas as to why the th. of creation by intelligent design was a reasonable theory (I'm not even saying the RIGHT theory, just a reasonable one) that th. of ev. people would agree to think about it. But since it is thrown out before I can even present details, I'll just exit now. I suppose that different logic just reaches different people, I don't know. I'm really sorry to think that people are so committed to their theory that they are not more open-minded to considering others (again, how much more reasonable a premise can you get? There are intelligently designed things all around us!!) Anyway, enough of that. It's been very nice posting with such intelligent and considerate people (and I sincerely mean that!! I'm just sad that people won't consider intelligent design ), and I'll enjoy seeing you all on the other threads.

My final summary, if anyone's interested: (I'll use ToE for th. of ev., ToCBID for th. of creation by intelligent design, since we all love typing shortcuts! )

(1) ToE (AND ToCBID) are both theories ABOUT facts; they are not themselves provable scientific facts;

(2) Neither ToE (NOR ToCBID) are infinitely adjustable - if their basic testable tenets are shown by new data to be incorrect, then a new theory should be formulated.

(3) Atheism is ABSOLUTELY NOT a neutral scientific position! Atheism is also a belief, just like a religious belief (or call them ideologies if you want to, but neither position is scientifically proveable)

(4) The ToCBID is a REASONABLE theory based on a REASONABLE premise from observing the world around us!

And a final note - I seem to see on this thread what I call the "neener-neener" approach to data - in other words, like "the fossil record proves MY theory, so YOU can't have it!! neener-neener!" (And Earniel, I would be interested in the Flemish equivalent! It's the sound that the kid that ends up with the toy makes when he/she is successful grabbing it away from someone else.) (and I'm trying to make this a bit funny, BTW, to keep things in good humor - I'm NOT at all angry, just extremely puzzled and sad).

However, data can fall into many categories. In other words, it may be neutral, it may support one theory, it may support both theories, it may contradict one theory, it may contradict both theories. Do you see what I mean? If, for example, (and don't lose your shirts, people! It's an example, ok!) the fossil record consists entirely of one type of bone from one type of animal, then it would support neither and would contradict neither. If it consists of all fully-formed animals, it would support ToCBID and not support (but not DIRECTLY contradict) ToE. If it consisted of hundred of intermediate types in addition to the fully formed types, it would support ToE and contradict ToCBID. And the same applies to DNA, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.

The problem, at least with the fossil record, is that IMO it contains scads of fully formed animals and a very small amount, and those debatable, number of intermediate types. (Now please don't quote and argue this - I'm just trying to show WHY this thread gets so long!) 2nd law of thermo. - same thing - STRONGLY supports ToCBID, but there is a footnote to it, discussing the formation of crystals, that may be interpreted to support ToE (but I believe incorrectly, because net entropy is STILL increased, but you can refer back to the first few pages). Same with DNA - why shouldn't an intelligent designer use DNA to store info? No reason for ToE people to claim similarity between man and chimps and say ToCBID people can't use DNA!! I hope you see my UNDERLYING idea here - PLEASE don't look at data as solely belonging to one side or the other.

Anyway, this has been very intellectually stimulating, and probably has set records for civility on a topic like this. I hope we all learned some things, and again, hope to see you all on other threads soon! There's a great new discussion project that just opened up on the Sil forum....

Best regards -- RÃ*an

RÃan

06-04-2003, 12:16 AM

The previous post was my final post from the last go-round of this thread, which ended late last year. I thought it was appropriate to re-post so some of the newer people could see it. I hit the length limit with this one! I couldn't even post these few sentences at the top, so I had to post them after.

RÃan

06-04-2003, 12:29 AM

My concern on this thread has always been to correct the "evolution is scientifically proven" error. I saw it crop up again in this go-round, but now I see it corrected to something like "Parts of evolution are scientifically proven, but parts are REASONABLE INFERENCES".

And I have no problem with that! If people think evolution is the best fit, then fine! But PLEASE don't say the whole thing is scientifically proven, because it ISN'T!!!!!!

*takes some deep breaths to calm down*

I've never really wanted to get into lots of details, because IMO, it just starts to descend into:

1. "Well, MY scientist says this!!"

2. "Well, MY scientist is bigger than your scientist, and HE says THIS!!" YOUR scientist is STUPID!

3. "Well, my NEXT scientist is even bigger, and SHE says this!!" And you AND your scientist are BOTH stupid!

Over and over, ad nauseum. Whoever has the best access to the biggest and best scientist "wins". And none of us here on the Moot are world-renowned scientists in this field, that I know of.

I like seeing data, but I don't like the kind of discussion that too often goes on. So I've just been content with fighting for the 4 points that I mentioned in my re-posted post. And really, I'm just thrilled to correct the "evolution is a fact" error!!!

HOBBIT

06-04-2003, 12:35 AM

(1) ToE (AND ToCBID) are both theories ABOUT facts; they are not themselves provable scientific facts;

no, not really. evolution is through scientific research and evidence. creation is based only on belief - what facts? only evolution is based on facts.

(2) Neither ToE (NOR ToCBID) are infinitely adjustable - if their basic testable tenets are shown by new data to be incorrect, then a new theory should be formulated.
Evolution is a theory, one which can be adjusted. how can creation be adjusted? God created everything - the theory of creation by intelligent design has not evolved, if you will. :P

(3) Atheism is ABSOLUTELY NOT a neutral scientific position! Atheism is also a belief, just like a religious belief (or call them ideologies if you want to, but neither position is scientifically proveable)
Atheism is a belief, yes..

(4) The ToCBID is a REASONABLE theory based on a REASONABLE premise from observing the world around us!
Well not that reasonable. What you are saying is basically "we don't understand how the world was made, so therefore there has to have been a supreme being that created everything"

evolution is a more reasonable theory based on actually observing the world - fossil records, etc.

And a final note - I seem to see on this thread what I call the "neener-neener" approach to data - in other words, like "the fossil record proves MY theory, so YOU can't have it!! neener-neener!" (And Earniel, I would be interested in the Flemish equivalent! It's the sound that the kid that ends up with the toy makes when he/she is successful grabbing it away from someone else.) (and I'm trying to make this a bit funny, BTW, to keep things in good humor - I'm NOT at all angry, just extremely puzzled and sad).
well, neener-neener, there is evidence that supports evolution greatly, like fossil records...and um where is the evidence for creation?

However, data can fall into many categories. In other words, it may be neutral, it may support one theory, it may support both theories, it may contradict one theory, it may contradict both theories. Do you see what I mean? If, for example, (and don't lose your shirts, people! It's an example, ok!) the fossil record consists entirely of one type of bone from one type of animal, then it would support neither and would contradict neither. If it consists of all fully-formed animals, it would support ToCBID and not support (but not DIRECTLY contradict) ToE. If it consisted of hundred of intermediate types in addition to the fully formed types, it would support ToE and contradict ToCBID. And the same applies to DNA, 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.
Eh, i dont understand. there is really nothing that proves creation.

fossil records would never consist of one type of bone - bad example.

what do you mean fully-formed animals? you mean like modern horse found in an ancient layer? that too, would never happen.

I'll leave the rest alone. The second law of thermodynamics does not really support creation. I was just reading about this on the first few pages of the "creation science" topic today. Juntel basically says why this does not work, and I think you would better benefit from just reading it rather than me quoting him.

HOBBIT

06-04-2003, 12:38 AM

oh sorry, you didn't want your stuff quoted. my replies are basically quick and not extremely thought out - but i wanted to get my thoughts in:P so there may be some errors.

i also don't agree with that whole "my scientist is better than yours" I'd be more likely to say "your scientist is not actually a scientist"

oh well, i must sleep now and i'm sorry to see you leaving this topic rian, because now this topic will most likely die.

RÃan

06-04-2003, 12:52 AM

So before I go off and re-find some links, I just want to present again that I think that CBID is "based on a REASONABLE premise from observing the world around us" (from my point 4).

Now many of you have probably heard of the "watch on a beach" analogy (or something like that, don't know exactly what it's called). It goes like this - you're walking down a beach, looking around at the scenery - driftwood shaped by the forces of nature, stones shaped by the forces of nature, on and on, and then you see a watch lying on the sand. Do you think "oh, look at this watch shaped by the forces of nature! How lovely"??? NO! Of course not! You instantly realize that there is an intelligent being behind the design and manufacture of this thing.

Now look at the world around us. It is complex! It's incredibly complex, with completely different things tied together and working together in harmony(like the water cycle).

So I ask: is it reasonable, based on observing the world around us, to think that there might be an intelligent designer/manufacturer behind things?

I think it is eminently resonable.

Now, at this point, it may be reasonable, but it is also outside the realm of science.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point, I'm going to start researching the links. I would like to ask the people on this thread to please answer my question - "is it reasonable, based on observing the world around us, to think that there might be an intelligent designer/manufacturer behind things?" If I get some "yes" answers, then I'll share the links here. If I don't get some "yes" answers, then I'll just PM them to Cass, who very reasonably and intelligently asked to see the data behind the CBID theory before she could answer my question about the integrity of the CBID scientists.

I hope some of you will honestly answer "yes", because I really believe it is a very reasonable thought, and I think that anyone that honestly thinks about it will answer "yes". However, I think that many people don't answer "yes" solely because of fear - peer pressure fear, mostly, but some other fears, too.

Any takers? :)

HOBBIT

06-04-2003, 12:55 AM

I do respect your opinion.

But just because things are complex does not mean that there has to be a super being behind it all.

I see where you are coming from.

I just don't see it as very reasonable - i see evolution as being way more reasonable. It is possible though.

RÃan

06-04-2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
oh sorry, you didn't want your stuff quoted. my replies are basically quick and not extremely thought out - but i wanted to get my thoughts in:P so there may be some errors.

i also don't agree with that whole "my scientist is better than yours" I'd be more likely to say "your scientist is not actually a scientist"

oh well, i must sleep now and i'm sorry to see you leaving this topic rian, because now this topic will most likely die.

NO, NO, NO, HOBBIT! You must have not read my next post!!!! That was a repeat of my final post from the last go-round, and the ONLY reason I asked to not be quoted back then was because I was not going to be around to defend it!!!

Quote me now all you want to!!

I'm not leaving yet :)

I think I better do some edits to make that a little clearer.

RÃan

06-04-2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
But just because things are complex does not mean that there has to be a super being behind it all.

I completely agree with you!!!

But is it a reasonable thought that there MIGHT be an intelligent being behind things? And again, at this point it is still completely outside the realm of science.

RÃan

06-04-2003, 01:07 AM

OK, I added a big note to the post above the reposted post (if that makes sense). I tried to add a few explanatory sentences to the post itself, but I kept hitting the post length limit :mad: :mad: I hope it's understandable what I did now; is it?

Earniel

06-04-2003, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
It goes like this - you're walking down a beach, looking around at the scenery - driftwood shaped by the forces of nature, stones shaped by the forces of nature, on and on, and then you see a watch lying on the sand. Do you think "oh, look at this watch shaped by the forces of nature! How lovely"??? NO! Of course not! You instantly realize that there is an intelligent being behind the design and manufacture of this thing.

Of course you're not thinking "Oh, look at this watch shaped by the forces of nature! How lovely." You're thinking "Hah! Some idiot lost a perfectly good watch here. Well it's mine now!"

Sorry, couldn't let it pass. :D

The basic point is that a watch is a lifeless thing. You can't use this example to explain that complex living things can or can't be intelligently designed.

I don't argue whether or not there is an intelligent designer. My point is if there was one, he used evolution to do it and started out by working with amoebas.

RÃan

06-04-2003, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by EÃ¤rniel
The basic point is that a watch is a lifeless thing. You can't use this example to explain that complex living things can or can't be intelligently designed.
But I think you're reading more into my question than is there. I"m not asking for you to conclude a "can" or "can't" here - I'm asking if it's a reasonable thought to think that there MIGHT be an intelligent designer behind the universe, given the complexity that we can all observe. It was reasonable to conclude that the watch was made by an intelligent being; and as you point out, it's lifeless! Life is more complex; is it reasonable to think that there MIGHT be an intelligent designer behind the universe, then? And if you say that it can't be proven, I would agree with you.

(ps - funny about the watch! Let's just hope that the forces of nature didn't bang it around too much, or it won't work anymore!)

Giroth

06-04-2003, 03:16 PM

I must say,HOBBIT,you have a thing for disagreeing with me:p:rolleyes: :p

But anyway,sorry,I DID mean creationism,
and there IS plenty of evidence behind it as well.But you do not know about it like some of us do;like I don't about evoution.:)

~Giroth

HOBBIT

06-04-2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
I must say,HOBBIT,you have a thing for disagreeing with me:p:rolleyes: :p

But anyway,sorry,I DID mean creationism,
and there IS plenty of evidence behind it as well.But you do not know about it like some of us do;like I don't about evoution.:)

~Giroth

oh ok, you just "know" this evidence then. Would you like to share this "evidence" with the rest of us?

I am actually trying to understand this "evidence" for creation, whereas you are openly ignoring the evidence for evolution.

Giroth

06-04-2003, 03:28 PM

heheheheh,disagreeing again?:p

Well,I listened to YOUR evidence for evoution,though I didn't believe it.So,here is MY evidence.......you also don't have to believe it:)

Now I'm no expert on all this,
but places from the Bible do exist,
for one thing........and some events in it
have been proved true.......the ark found on a mountain,the covenant,
ect.........so that means that what it says IS true............including that about creationism,is my point.The
Bible has plenty
of truths in it,and even about the future and what is happening now.
I know that is not what we're talking about,but my point is that the Bible
is correct,and since the Bible also
talks of creationism,
it is also true........

Butt something we can both say is this;
Both you and I have NOT experienced full truth of what had happened in the beginning,so we follow that which we hear and believe.
We are even.
I'm not telling you your wrong...I just disagree.:)

~Giroth

HOBBIT

06-04-2003, 03:44 PM

Yes, I agree that no one knows the answer.

That is your proof? Places in the bible exist therefore the whole thing is completely true? That is hardly evidence to support creation by supreme being.

The bible is loosely based in fact - many of the cities mentioned in it actually existed and many of the kings - but what does that prove? there are also many historical errors in the bible. Like some of the kings did exist but not in the splendour as described in the bible and some didn't exist at all. Some cities were built much later than as mentioned in the bible. These cities existed when the thing was written, so of course they were mentioned.

Also, the exodus from egypt has been historically proven - it happened. Same with other things.

But this does not prove the existance of god or is really "evidence" to creation.

You are basically saying that you believe the bible is complete truth and this is proved by the facts that it is loosely based on fact. This makes no sense. The creation story could just as likely been made up by the people writing the bible and that would not effect the rest of it.

If you do not understand this how about this:
The city of Troy has been found - the city from Homer's Odyssey - by your logic, everything from the Odyssey is factual - hmm cyclops exist? Sirens (sp?) exist? All the other fantastic creatures exist? I think not!!

Also, Greece and Rome, both ancient cities exist. These cities are in Greek and Roman mythology - does that mean that you believe that Zeus, Hates, and Posiedon exist??

do you see what i am saying? i could come up with at least a dozen more examples...those are just things off the top of my head

How about some 'real' evidence. There, i have heard yours...what do you have to say about that...

HOBBIT

06-04-2003, 03:48 PM

oh and ps - the ark has NOT been found. There is a block like shape at the top of Mount Arrarat taken by satalelite photos. It is NOT VERY CLEAR AT ALL and is PROBABLY JUST ROCK. Some people think it is the ark. All previous expeditions have found ZERO PROOF of the ark. All they have is a picture of maybe nothing.

Hold on - it is still possible that there is a boat up there, but it has in no way been proven in the least, Girorth.

With no proof, another expedition is needed - but wait, the Turkish government won't let anyone go anywhere near the mountain.

RÃan

06-04-2003, 03:50 PM

I'm still waiting for yes/no responses to this: Is it reasonable, based on observing the complexity of the world around us, to think that there MIGHT be an intelligent designer/manufacturer behind things?

Note that it is outside the realm of science at this point. I'm not talking about science at this point, I'm talking about what a reasonable person might think. I'm not talking conclude, either, as in a final conclusion - I'm talking about thinking that it would be reasonable to think that there MIGHT be an intelligent being behind things, even though it would not be possible to prove its existence (unless it came to visit or something like that).

People - it's a simple question! I'm NOT trying to fool anyone! When have you seen me be dishonest/sneaky? I'm not going to reach thru your monitor and get you in a stranglehold until you say you believe in creationism! If you think that it IS a reasonable thing to think, you can still say (1) but there's no proof for it, or (if I ever get to sharing the links, which I"ll do if some people say it's reasonable) (2) I don't think the data supports it, and I think the data DOES support the theory of evolution. See? 2 responses, ready-made for your convenience! :D

Hobbit - you said "it is possible though." Can I count that as a 'yes', or not?

HOBBIT

06-04-2003, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'm still waiting for yes/no responses to this: Is it reasonable, based on observing the complexity of the world around us, to think that there MIGHT be an intelligent designer/manufacturer behind things?

Note that it is outside the realm of science at this point. I'm not talking about science at this point, I'm talking about what a reasonable person might think. I'm not talking conclude, either, as in a final conclusion - I'm talking about thinking that it would be reasonable to think that there MIGHT be an intelligent being behind things, even though it would not be possible to prove its existence (unless it came to visit or something like that).

People - it's a simple question! I'm NOT trying to fool anyone! When have you seen me be dishonest/sneaky? I'm not going to reach thru your monitor and get you in a stranglehold until you say you believe in creationism! If you think that it IS a reasonable thing to think, you can still say (1) but there's no proof for it, or (if I ever get to sharing the links, which I"ll do if some people say it's reasonable) (2) I don't think the data supports it, and I think the data DOES support the theory of evolution. See? 2 responses, ready-made for your convenience! :D

Hobbit - you said "it is possible though." Can I count that as a 'yes', or not?

Yes, outside of the scientific realm it is possible.

RÃan

06-04-2003, 03:53 PM

ps - Hobbit, did my explanations/edits clear things up about the copy of my last post from the last go-round here? *Geez, what a a sentence! I'm having trouble wording things :mad: *

HOBBIT

06-04-2003, 03:55 PM

oh i see yes, you should have just said that to begin with :P

RÃan

06-04-2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Yes, outside of the scientific realm it is possible.
Is it a reasonable thing to think, given the complexity of the world around us?

Many things can be called possible, even things that are not reasonable, IMO.

Giroth

06-04-2003, 03:58 PM

HOBBIT,you did not fully listen.
I said I was NO expert at it.I am subject to make a mistake.
besides,I said that the bible said things about what would happen today,as well.These things described HAVE happened,and more will come.

Oh and nomatter WHAT you say about evoution or about my belief,
you will never change my thoughts......it's like me trying to explain creationsim to you,and why I believe it.
I am a Christian,
your an athiest,so there you go.....we're bound to clash LOL

~Giroth

HOBBIT

06-04-2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Is it a reasonable thing to think, given the complexity of the world around us?

Many things can be called possible, even things that are not reasonable, IMO.

Reasonable? Yes. It is very reasonable, thats why so many people believe in it without even trying to understand evolution. But it is not good enough for me that everything is complex, so therefore someone created it.... to me it is just a possibility. Evolution is much more reasonable to ME. But obviously, to a lot of people Creation is more reasonable...

HOBBIT

06-04-2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
HOBBIT,you did not fully listen.
I said I was NO expert at it.I am subject to make a mistake.
besides,I said that the bible said things about what would happen today,as well.These things described HAVE happened,and more will come.

Oh and nomatter WHAT you say about evoution or about my belief,
you will never change my thoughts......it's like me trying to explain creationsim to you,and why I believe it.
I am a Christian,
your an athiest,so there you go.....we're bound to clash LOL

~Giroth

Am I an expert? No. I'm just several months older than you. It is not that black and white. Its not like im an atheist so absolutetely nothing with change my mind - no. If someone says something reasonable to me, I will change my views. You have not, as I found many flaws in your "proof" of creation. :P

Giroth

06-04-2003, 04:04 PM

hm?only a few moths older than me?.....I thought you were 40 something...no offence:P

haha............I have not..........but I have set my view on what I believe to be true,
and evolution doesn't sound MORE reasonable,so I don't change MY view.
if it's the same for you,but you are more open,then so be it.I
won't turn away form creationism...:P

HOBBIT

06-04-2003, 04:08 PM

nah, not a few (which is 2). i said several :P I was born in April 88' and you (according to your profile) Dec 88'

Actually, ZERO offense taken - that is like a high compliment :)

I'm glad we can agree to disagree ;) :P

Giroth

06-04-2003, 04:10 PM

heheheheh....me too,I suppose.:P

well,my dad is 40,and he is.........VERY disagreeable and stubborn.........but I suppose you could say the same of me,yes?heheheh:)

No hard feelings,

~Giroth

RÃan

06-04-2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Reasonable? Yes. It is very reasonable, thats why so many people believe in it without even trying to understand evolution. But it is not good enough for me that everything is complex, so therefore someone created it.... to me it is just a possibility. Evolution is much more reasonable to ME. But obviously, to a lot of people Creation is more reasonable...
OK, thanks, Hobbit.

jerseydevil

06-05-2003, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
At this point, I'm going to start researching the links. I would like to ask the people on this thread to please answer my question - "is it reasonable, based on observing the world around us, to think that there might be an intelligent designer/manufacturer behind things?" If I get some "yes" answers, then I'll share the links here. If I don't get some "yes" answers, then I'll just PM them to Cass, who very reasonably and intelligently asked to see the data behind the CBID theory before she could answer my question about the integrity of the CBID scientists.

I hope some of you will honestly answer "yes", because I really believe it is a very reasonable thought, and I think that anyone that honestly thinks about it will answer "yes". However, I think that many people don't answer "yes" solely because of fear - peer pressure fear, mostly, but some other fears, too.

Any takers? :)
I don't see where it's any more reasonable than pure evolution. I'm not sure why you think it's reasonable. Is it possible - yes. Anything is. Is it probable? - no. I don't think it is. As I said - life could have just have been placed on earth by aliens too. I don't think that should be tought in school though. I don't feel that speculation should be taught in school. There is no way to prove that a higher being had a role in our creation. There is evidence of evolution - and therefore should be taught. Even if it was by a a higher power - it doesn't eliminate the evolution part - so why would people insist on teaching the unprovable part? Teach the actual demonstrated theory - evolution. Just because we look around and see the birds flying and the beautiful trees and are amazed doesn't mean that it took intelligence to make them. We just don't understand it.

RÃan

06-05-2003, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't see where it's any more reasonable than pure evolution. I'm not sure why you think it's reasonable. Is it possible - yes. Anything is. Is it probable? - no. I don't think it is. As I said - life could have just have been placed on earth by aliens too. I don't think that should be tought in school though. I don't feel that speculation should be taught in school. There is no way to prove that a higher being had a role in our creation. There is evidence of evolution - and therefore should be taught. Even if it was by a a higher power - it doesn't eliminate the evolution part - so why would people insist on teaching the unprovable part? Teach the actual demonstrated theory - evolution. Just because we look around and see the birds flying and the beautiful trees and are amazed doesn't mean that it took intelligence to make them. We just don't understand it.
JD, you're jumping waaay ahead of the question. I'm not asking if you think it's probable or possible. I'm not talking about supporting data. I'm talking about if you think if the mere idea, unsupported by anything else, is one that a reasonable person might consider. NOT conclude, but consider or wonder about.

I think Hobbit expressed it well when he said "Reasonable? Yes. It is very reasonable, thats why so many people believe in it without even trying to understand evolution." Now that's how I mean it. Hobbit doesn't think that it's scientific, or that any data supports it (if I read him correctly - is that right, Hobbit?), but he can see how it is a reasonable thought.

Let me try another illustration here - perhaps this will help. I think you guys are just reading way too much into the question.

OK, the animal cops (hmm, perhaps blue jays? They seem like they might be good cops) get called out to a crime scene at the local zoo - there is a little bird house (say about 1 foot by 1 foot, or 25 cm by 25 cm) that someone broke into and wrote teensy little graffiti on the interior walls. The door of the birdhouse was taken off, but the birdhouse was left entirely undamaged otherwise. Now the elephant area is on one side of the birdhouse, and the squirrel area is on the other.

Would it be reasonable to think that the elephant MIGHT have done it? Well, no, not really.

And that's the level I'm trying to get at - a basic, first-cut shot at the solution of a problem. In this case, it would be reasonable to think that the squirrels MIGHT have done it (cheeky little buggars!) Further investigation might prove, however, that the snakes did it (or even the elephants somehow!) But it is REASONABLE to think that the squirrels MIGHT have done it.

Does that explain it more clearly?

Does anyone else have a better way to word what I'm trying to ask?

Baby-K

06-05-2003, 02:22 AM

RÃ*an - do you mean reasonable as in weighing the evidence of both possibilities and then, once this is done, elliminating the option that cannot hold true due to spesific elements prohibiting the assimilation of that into a person's reality? (like in your analogy about the grafiti on the bird house - the elephant is probably elliminated due to size, i.e it is unbelievable that he could have done it as he is too big to fit in there & we cannot assimilate the possibility of a big elephant doing such small work into our preconceived ideas of what elephants are capable of)

this conversation about AWOL elephants & Blue jays will of course not make sense anywhere else :rolleyes: ;)

(why am I struggling so much with English today?)

RÃan

06-05-2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Baby-K
[B]RÃ*an - do you mean reasonable as in weighing the evidence of both possibilities and then, once this is done, elliminating the option that cannot hold true due to spesific elements prohibiting the assimilation of that into a person's reality? (like in your analogy about the grafiti on the bird house - the elephant is probably elliminated due to size, i.e it is unbelievable that he could have done it as he is too big to fit in there & we cannot assimilate the possibility of a big elephant doing such small work into our preconceived ideas of what elephants are capable of)

No, that's NOT what I mean - you guys are just so smart :D you're jumping waaay ahead of what I mean. Weighing evidence will come later- I'm talking about a FIRST thought, based on what you see. And I'm asking is it reasonable, given our observations of the complexity in the world, to think that an intelligent being might have made things. No evidence weighing yet! Just an initial forming of an idea, based on observation of the situation.

this conversation about AWOL elephants & Blue jays will of course not make sense anywhere else :rolleyes: ;) Hey, at least I'm original :D

(why am I struggling so much with English today?) I think you caught it from me - I'm having trouble too - prob. because I'm mad about the stupid field trip for today (see vent thread) Yuck!!

samwiselvr2008

06-05-2003, 03:27 PM

Rian, I geuss I'll take, I don't really know what your asking thought, I do belive that there had to be a desiner behind it all, and I believe in Christianity, so is that what you were asking, or were you asking about posting the links? Or the info.? Eather way, yes to all of them. Or, if you were talking about something else, then I'm really lost and please try to explain it again!

RÃan

06-06-2003, 12:04 AM

Did you see my little crime-at-the-zoo example (I think on the previous page)? In that example, it's reasonable to think that a smaller-type animal was responsible. Now when the evidence is gathered and looked at, we might find something different, or we might find our initial guess was right. But I'm NOT talking about looking at evidence, I'm talking about just a first-cut-at-things idea - is it reasonable, looking at the complex world around us, to think that perhaps an intelligent and powerful being designed and made the world?

RÃan

06-06-2003, 12:37 AM

I didn't think this would be such a difficult-to-understand question :confused:

Hobbit, you seem to catch what I mean - how would YOU word it? Is my wording just really unclear?

Earniel

06-06-2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Let me try another illustration here - perhaps this will help. I think you guys are just reading way too much into the question.

OK, the animal cops (hmm, perhaps blue jays? They seem like they might be good cops) get called out to a crime scene at the local zoo - there is a little bird house (say about 1 foot by 1 foot, or 25 cm by 25 cm) that someone broke into and wrote teensy little graffiti on the interior walls. The door of the birdhouse was taken off, but the birdhouse was left entirely undamaged otherwise. Now the elephant area is on one side of the birdhouse, and the squirrel area is on the other.

Would it be reasonable to think that the elephant MIGHT have done it? Well, no, not really.

I maybe taking it again to far :rolleyes: but I'm thinking: elephants, very agile trunks. I've seen them use it to hold grass and branches, I even have seen them paint (Thai Elephant Art project, don't ask). So I' not writing the elephant off yet.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-06-2003, 01:51 AM

How about hippopotamus? :p ;)

Baby-K

06-06-2003, 01:52 AM

No, that's NOT what I mean - you guys are just so smart you're jumping waaay ahead of what I mean. Weighing evidence will come later- I'm talking about a FIRST thought, based on what you see. And I'm asking is it reasonable, given our observations of the complexity in the world, to think that an intelligent being might have made things. No evidence weighing yet! Just an initial forming of an idea, based on observation of the situation.

Well, as a first thought, yeah - anything could be reasonable I would think. However, our realities are not sustained by first thoughts, but rather by thorough investigation an ellimination of unrealistic options. There is a vast diferrence between reasonable and realistic.

See, I believe that God must have had something to do with the creation of it all - in placing the raw material here, but that evolution is mostly responsible for the world as we see it today. IMO we should look at the option of teaching both as supportive to each other.

Hey, at least I'm original

Now that's a reasonable assumption ;) :D

I think you caught it from me - I'm having trouble too - prob. because I'm mad about the stupid field trip for today (see vent thread) Yuck!!

Yeah - it just felt like I was spelling everythin wrong - eventually I thought I should try Russian 'cos it couldn't get any worse (it was one of those rare days when i was thinking in Afrikaans & trying to translate my thoughts, rather than think in English as I usually do) :p

RÃan

06-06-2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by EÃ¤rniel
I maybe taking it again to far :rolleyes: but I'm thinking: elephants, very agile trunks. I've seen them use it to hold grass and branches, I even have seen them paint (Thai Elephant Art project, don't ask). So I' not writing the elephant off yet.
I just watched an elephant pick little bits of hay out of his water pond yesterday at the zoo - amazing dexterity!

No, I wouldn't want you to write off the elephant. That would be wrong to do at this point. Remember, we haven't started the investigative work yet. But I would think that most people would agree that it is more reasonable to initially think that the squirrel might have done it - do you guys agree?

I meant to make the birdhouse size such that (1) the DOOR of it would not admit an elephant's trunk; (2) but if you took a side of it off, an elephant's trunk would fit.

Or we could just switch from one big mammal to another - how about switching from an elephant to a killer whale? :D That would make it even less likely!

But again, I'm not talking about eliminating other possibilities - just is it reasonable to think blah blah blah yada yada yada. (I'm sure you guys are getting as sick of this as I am, but I think you're finally starting to see what I mean. I wish I could word things better.)

Originally posted by Baby K
Well, as a first thought, yeah - anything could be reasonable I would think. However, our realities are not sustained by first thoughts, but rather by thorough investigation an ellimination of unrealistic options. There is a vast diferrence between reasonable and realistic.

Maybe the problem is semantics - I would say anything could be possible, but not everything would be reasonable for a first-cut guess. IOW, it would be a more natural, reasonable thing to start the investigation at the squirrel house than the killer whale tank. Does that make sense? And I agree with the rest of your quote - well said :)

RÃan

06-06-2003, 12:16 PM

ps - do you know what Icholta is doing right now, EÃ¤rniel? ;)

pps - I'll finish off this topic today and start with the links - thanks for being so patient, everyone.

Earniel

06-06-2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
ps - do you know what Icholta is doing right now, EÃ¤rniel? ;)

Unfortunately not right now. The updates of the month of may will only be up next week or so. But I can make an educated guess from the usual lay-out of life at the orphanage: At noon she has very like had a lovely mudwallow with the rest of her mini-herd. Maybe even with a game bushbashing afterwards. Knowing her, a little pushinggame with Nyiro is also possible. And around this time, I'm guessing she'll be back at the stockades eating some copra-cakes and trying to steal the milkshare of the smaller elephants before going to bed. I know, I'm obsessed.... ;)

here ends the little intermezzo.(before we go entirly off topic :))

RÃan

06-06-2003, 04:20 PM

... but are there any birdhouses on the compound ..... ;)

Earniel

06-06-2003, 05:40 PM

... but are there any birdhouses on the compound ..... ;)

Not that I know of. :p Of course only the Stockades where the elephants spend the night are fenced. The rest of the time they're out in the park/reserve. There are plenty of nests I suppose. Sometimes the little elephants get scared by a flock of birds that they run trompetting back to [EDIT:their] keepers. (bless their cute little big-eared heads).

How about hippopotamus?

You know, I just had the astonishing mental image about a hippo taking a ladder out his pocket, placing it against the tree, tearing off the door of the birdhouse, picking up a (long) paintbrush and with its tongue out its mouth carefully beginning to put graffiti on the wall. Then quickly stuffing the brush and the ladder into its pocket, jumping over his fence and trying to look innocent in his own compound. I think the exams are finally getting to me.

So maybe we should get to the point before I go completely [EDIT: off] my rocker (provided I didn't do that already long ago) and just say: Yes, an intelligent designer of the world may be a reasonable thing to think at first sight. I believe that is the main point of our little zoo-drama. :)

Gwaimir Windgem

06-06-2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by EÃ¤rniel
You know, I just had the astonishing mental image about a hippo taking a ladder out his pocket, placing it against the tree, tearing off the door of the birdhouse, picking up a (long) paintbrush and with its tongue out its mouth carefully beginning to put graffiti on the wall. Then quickly stuffing the brush and the ladder into its pocket, jumping over his fence and trying to look innocent in his own compound. I think the exams are finally getting to me.

Maybe....:eek: ;)

By the way, I noticed the addition to your sig. ;)

GrayMouser

06-07-2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'm still waiting for yes/no responses to this: Is it reasonable, based on observing the complexity of the world around us, to think that there MIGHT be an intelligent designer/manufacturer behind things?

Note that it is outside the realm of science at this point. I'm not talking about science at this point, I'm talking about what a reasonable person might think. I'm not talking conclude, either, as in a final conclusion - I'm talking about thinking that it would be reasonable to think that there MIGHT be an intelligent being behind things, even though it would not be possible to prove its existence (unless it came to visit or something like that).

People - it's a simple question! I'm NOT trying to fool anyone! When have you seen me be dishonest/sneaky? I'm not going to reach thru your monitor and get you in a stranglehold until you say you believe in creationism! If you think that it IS a reasonable thing to think, you can still say (1) but there's no proof for it, or (if I ever get to sharing the links, which I"ll do if some people say it's reasonable) (2) I don't think the data supports it, and I think the data DOES support the theory of evolution. See? 2 responses, ready-made for your convenience! :D

Yes.

It's certainly reasonable to think that there MIGHT be a Creator.

RÃan

06-07-2003, 02:27 PM

Thanks for answering my question, GrayMouser.

BTW, whoever is interested in the links that I said I would provide, I just PMed cass, who was the one that first asked for links, to tell her it will be at least next week, because I'm in the middle of 2 graduations with parties and rehersals and etc., and I feel the "Offshoot" thread question has priority over this one, because I started that one first. And my info is in books, not links, so I don't have links handy - I"ll have to research them. Sorry I'm not faster, but the links will come (and please bug me if I forget!)

GrayMouser

06-07-2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Thanks for answering my question, GrayMouser.

BTW, whoever is interested in the links that I said I would provide, I just PMed cass, who was the one that first asked for links, to tell her it will be at least next week, because I'm in the middle of 2 graduations with parties and rehersals and etc., and I feel the "Offshoot" thread question has priority over this one, because I started that one first. And my info is in books, not links, so I don't have links handy - I"ll have to research them. Sorry I'm not faster, but the links will come (and please bug me if I forget!)

While you are waiting you could try these ( he oh-so-casually suggests)

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html

Anglorfin

06-08-2003, 01:49 AM

Rian, my answer to your question would be yes, but with limitations. I never like to rule out any possibility, but to me history has shown that whatever we don't understand at the time we just categorize as religious phenomena. Religion is a great place to stash all the stuff we can't figure out because of lack of evidence or the means to collect that evidence. It is for this reason that I do not like dismissing things as "miracles" and such, because sooner or later they might be "solved". But just the same I will not deny there could be a mystical force controlling my destiny. It is unwise to close off either avenue.

RÃan

06-08-2003, 02:06 AM

Thanks for answering, Anglorfin :)

I agree that there's been lots of abuses in the name of religion (not just the Christian religion, BTW!) and I think that religion has improperly stepped into science, and vice versa.

And I just finished up my main posting on the "Offshoot" thread (I think and hope there will be some discussion, but my major explanations are finished), so after the 2 graduations on Tuesday, I should be able to spend a bit of time here to (finally!) give some links to Cass.

HOBBIT

06-08-2003, 02:40 AM

admin note
Ok - lets get back on topic here - no more answering of Rian's question(pm her if you really care). It is irrelevant to the topic: "should evolution be taught in schools?"

Whether or not it is reasonabe as a first thought that there is a supreme creator has nothing to do with the topic at all. Certainly as a second thought it is not very reasonable at all :P

It does not matter anyway because the topic is not "should creation be taught in schools?" (as truth) to which the obvious and definite answer is no.

Maybe that question is better suited for the offshoot topic? It will no longer be answer here and if this topic does not return to the original question, it will be closed.

Now just some comments:

just finished up my main posting on the "Offshoot" thread
Oh is that so?

I just looked at it and it is all addressing I guess truth and free will and what god and you think of it all is what you are addressing there, and that does not concern me in the least.

What about my long posts? (by finishing your main postings on the offshoot topic this implies that, well you are finished with your main postings in the offshoot topic) I really don' t care that much, but it would be nice if you would respond to some of my points so I can argue some more - right now it seems like the offshoot topic is closed off to me because of the current topic going on :P At least I THINK you are addressing truth and free will - not even really sure what you are answering... looked it over, skimmed it a little and I noticed that I was totally disinterested by it and there was nothing for me to comment on really. oh well. I don't mean to offend you rian - I'm just being truthful. Also, about my posts, it really does not matter if you reply to them or not (it was like what, over a week ago???), I would just like it if someone did, but it really does not matter to me. :D

-carry on with the topic "should evolution be taught in schools?"-

RÃan

06-08-2003, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
admin note
Ok - lets get back on topic here - no more answering of Rian's question(pm her if you really care). It is irrelevant to the topic: "should evolution be taught in schools?"
That question was a lead-in to providing links on creationism, which people on this thread asked about, and which is a related topic (IOW, if evolution SHOULDN"T be taught, then what should?)but I won't post here anymore on that subject if you don't want me to (because as an admin, you consider it to be too off-topic).

It does not matter anyway because the topic is not "should creation be taught in schools?" (as truth) to which the obvious and definite answer is no.
YOUR humble opinion! :D
****EDIT - I just noticed your "as truth" note - OK, I agree.

Maybe that question is better suited for the offshoot topic? It will no longer be answer here ..
OK, I guess that's my answer, so I'll stop posting here, because I've made my points about the THEORY of evolution already. :)

Now just some comments: Oh is that so? .... What about my long posts? (by finishing your main postings on the offshoot topic this implies that, well you are finished with your main postings in the offshoot topic) I really don' t care that much, but it would be nice if you would respond to some of my points so I can argue some more - right now it seems like the offshoot topic is closed off to me because of the current topic going on :P At least I THINK you are addressing truth and free will - not even really sure what you are answering... looked it over, skimmed it a little and I noticed that I was totally disinterested by it and there was nothing for me to comment on really. oh well. I don't mean to offend you rian - I'm just being truthful. Also, about my posts, it really does not matter if you reply to them or not (it was like what, over a week ago???), I would just like it if someone did, but it really does not matter to me. :D
You misunderstood me, Hobbit - I should have worded that better - I meant finished with my main posting on the subject of hell, which was what EG asked about. I've said several times that I fully intend to get to your question, but I wanted to finish up EG's first, because her question came first. And I've also said many times that I'm sorry that I can't work any faster. I will PM you when I get to your post, and you can either read it or not, whatever you wish.

HOBBIT

06-08-2003, 03:09 AM

I understand that you got to it by that, but as it is now "is it reasonable at god created everything" does not relate to "should evolution be taught in school" So yes, that is a little too off topic for this topic :)

Yes, that is my opinion. And note: all my opinions are only my own and the views of the rest of the staff.

Ah I see, well thats good. You should work faster ;) ;) Thanks. :)

Cirdan

06-08-2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by GrayMouser
While you are waiting you could try these ( he oh-so-casually suggests)

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html

Thanks for the excellent links, GM. Ken Miller is very interesting. Maybe Creationism should be taught in Poli Sci were it really belongs.:rolleyes:

Giroth

06-08-2003, 04:48 PM

Cirdan.........eh forget it,there is no point at explaining it to you.......*sigh:):)It's all good though.

"Maybe that question is better suited for the offshoot topic? It will no longer be answer here and if this topic does not return to the original question, it will be closed." ~HOBBIT

YAY!in my opinion,this topic is starting to cause division.........besides,I already got MY point in.....evolution should NOT be taught in school....so there you go:p

~giroth

Sheeana

06-08-2003, 05:08 PM

If you don't feel like explaining it to Cirdan, then why don't you explain it to the rest of us then? Oh yeah - cos you can't. :rolleyes:

Giroth

06-08-2003, 05:15 PM

*sigh

yeah...........I won't because I ALREADY DID!!!!!!!!!!!!Sheesh............besides,no one will listen to me.......why would a bunch of athiests
listen to a bunch of Christians,
or vice versa?:p:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Peace,

~Giroth

Cirdan

06-08-2003, 05:25 PM

seek truth

Giroth

06-08-2003, 06:21 PM

oh,but I do..............i consider your evolution thing false,and creationism truth......you do the opposite,so what can I say?

Cirdan

06-08-2003, 06:51 PM

keep looking

HOBBIT

06-08-2003, 07:11 PM

Giroth, you have presented in this topic some of the weakest arguments for creation that I have ever seen - and I explained thoroughly why your reasoning did NOT WORK.

Did you even read it? If not I would suggest acutally reading it. Why have such a closed mind?

Summary of my post (but I reeaaaaaly suggest that you ACUTALY READ my post concerning your "proof of creation"...its only a few pages back)You said that you believe that a god created the world because some cities mentioned in the bible exist - oh alright that means that you believe in the illiad, the oddysey, greek and roman mythology. Practically all the cities mentioned in those myths actually exist. Does that mean that the world was created by Titans and now Zeus, Hates, Posiedon et all reign over all of us? Do Cyclops exist? And you were also wrong about many of your "facts." No ark has been found, for example. BUT I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH giroth, actually read our posts and THINK about them before just writing them off, if that is not too hard

Also, people are not listening to you not because you are christian, but because you are not arguing your case well at all! Of course we listen to eachother here....

RÃan

06-08-2003, 07:51 PM

So Hobbit, does that mean that I can post links on details of creationism when I (finally) get them? (sorry, most of my info is in books, and I'll have to research some good links.) Is it just discussion on my question about the reasonableness of the premise behind creationism that you want stopped?

ps - could you look over at the Offshoot thread - I had a question for you there :)

HOBBIT

06-08-2003, 08:01 PM

Is it just discussion on my question about the reasonableness of the premise behind creationism that you want stopped?

Yes,because that is very off topic. It really nothing to do with "should evolution be taught in schools?"

You are certainly allowed to argue why you might think creation holds more water than evolution - that doesn't go directly with the topic, but it is more closely related than your question. For the people that say "NO," they obviously can and should argue WHY they say no - but you said "yes." But feel free to post evidence for creation, I'm curious to see it.

Giroth

06-09-2003, 01:35 AM

*sigh

HOBBIT,I've tried time and again to END this with you.....but your stubborness
does not permit you to ACTUALLY listen to me.I believe evoution is incorrect.......I am a Christian.
Your theory goes against my belief.....and when you really believe in something of this type of religion,you do NOT turn away from it.
You on the other hand are 100% ATHIEST,and you have all rights to feel as you do.
I respect YOUR opinion at least,as I have stated contuinually in the past.Oh and I have found MY truth...........keep looking Cirdan.......heheheh:pBut that is a matter of opinion,yes?

So,let's end this childish argument once and for all;the world came to be,if from evolution or creation,
and no matter waht way you look at it,its still the same;we are here,ok?I am not incorrect by your theory,and YOU are not incorrect by my belief......at least I can say that.:)
*shakes on it

Have a nice day,

~Giroth

GrayMouser

06-09-2003, 10:16 AM

BTW, Giroth, Christian does not equal Creationist, or vice versa.

There are hundreds of millions of Christians who accept evolution- the Pope, for one- and many non-Christians who reject it: fundamentalist Muslims, some fundamentalist Hindus, the Hare Krishnas etc.

Ruinel

06-09-2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Giroth
.....but your stubborness
does not permit you to ACTUALLY listen to me.I believe evoution is incorrect.......I am a Christian.
Your theory goes against my belief.....and when you really believe in something of this type of religion,you do NOT turn away from it.
You on the other hand are 100% ATHIEST,and you have all rights to feel as you do.....Oh and I have found MY truth...........

...;the world came to be,if from evolution or creation,
and no matter waht way you look at it,its still the same;we are here,ok?I am not incorrect by your theory,and YOU are not incorrect by my belief......at least I can say that.:)

You said there was proof for the threory of creationism. I believe these people are asking you to post that proof. Which means that Hobbit and others ARE listening to you. But you are not SAYING anything.

And I have to agree with GrayMouser, your religion does not confine you to belief that evolution did not occur. Just because a person is a Christian does not mean that he/she closes their eyes to the evidence that is presented to him/her. I know many Christians who believe in the theory of evolution.

By the way, the theory of evolution does not encompasses how the universe was created. :)

RÃan

06-09-2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
But feel free to post evidence for creation, I'm curious to see it.

ok, thanks, I will.

Ruinel

06-09-2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
ok, thanks, I will.
Ah, but he's talking about physical, reproducable evidence. Not what is written in the bible.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-09-2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
1) And I have to agree with GrayMouser, your religion does not confine you to belief that evolution did not occur. 2) Just because a person is a Christian does not mean that he/she closes their eyes to the evidence that is presented to him/her.

1) But atheism confines you to belief that evolution did occur, as the alternative is theism. ;)
2) Ah, so now if someone disagrees with you, they are close-minded, and ignore the truth? :p

Ruinel

06-09-2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) But atheism confines you to belief that evolution did occur, as the alternative is theism. ;)
2) Ah, so now if someone disagrees with you, they are close-minded, and ignore the truth? :p
1) I would have to agree with you there. Atheists tend to look objectively at the evidence presented. :p :D
2) oh, brother. :rolleyes: Yeah... Gwai, you are close-minded, ignoring the truth. Happy? :rolleyes:

Cirdan

06-09-2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) But atheism confines you to belief that evolution did occur, as the alternative is theism.

How is that? Are atheists somehow required to believe that evolution occurred? What about JD's alien theory?

As for the truth, my comment intended that in not seeking truth, regardless of what one believes, one is close-minded. Surely no one has all the answers. (plus it is just a saying from Classical Greece - maybe Socrates:))

Gwaimir Windgem

06-09-2003, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
1) I would have to agree with you there. Atheists tend to look objectively at the evidence presented. :p :D
2) oh, brother. :rolleyes: Yeah... Gwai, you are close-minded, ignoring the truth. Happy? :rolleyes: \

1) Translation, close-minded. :p
2) You said it, not me. ;)

Cirdan, could you please expound on the theory? :)

Ruinel

06-09-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) Translation, close-minded. :p
2) You said it, not me. ;)
1) If you say so. :rolleyes:
2) you suggested that I say it. ;) :) :D

Gwaimir Windgem

06-09-2003, 02:54 PM

2) But only because of your previous implication to the same effect. ;)

Ruinel

06-09-2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
2) But only because of your previous implication to the same effect. ;)
2) no... it was your closed-mindedness that brought you to that conclusion. :D BWAHAHAHAHA!!

HOBBIT

06-09-2003, 03:06 PM

*sigh* giroth

1. we are listening to you: you aren't saying anything
2. you are not listening to - you did not even read my post refuting your "evidence"
3.like what others said being christian does not mean you have to be a creationist and if you are a creationist it does not mean you are chrisitian.
things are not that black and white - you don't have to be so close-minded. you simply choose to be.
4. i am not "100% atheist" and being an atheist does not confine me to believe on certain things - I BELIEVE WHATEVER I WANT

GW:
and being an atheist does not mean that you have to believe in evolution. You could believe that aliens created the world, that we are the result of some alien 3rd grade science project, or a prank or joke. Or maybe we are the product of someone's deranged imagination? :P

Giroth

06-09-2003, 03:10 PM

:rolleyes:
HOBBIT,ok,you heard me;my point was that no one actually used any of MY information as I have to make real points.You say 'maybe aliens created the world' and stuff like that,but you don't use mine like I do with you.I am actually learning more aboyut evoution,though still I don't believe a word.In that aspect,I am more open minded then you are:p

You are barking up the wrong tree when you try to tell ME,a 100% Christian,that
creationsim isn't real,man.I am doing the same trying to explain creationsim to one who follows evolution.:)

graymouser,

I KNOW creationsim isn't just for christians.But my point is,REAL christians believe that the world was formed from creationism.Perhaps other religions share similar beliefs.In my opinion,a person cannot be a Christian if they turn and believe in evoution.Creationsim is one of the main beliefs in it,so rejecting it is,in no offence,against Christianity..but a person has 100% rights to do so.:)
Oh and I DID present my ideas as to why.No one listened.

Think this way;if everything just sort of popped from evolution,does that mean everything just happened by chance?We live here for nothing,simply to live out our lives then die?say for example,the earth was created inthe big bang thing,but what triggered the big bang theory?if we evolved from monkies,the monkies evolved from amoebas,what did the amoebas evolve from,and so on and so on?
It doesn't all add up.

My beliefs have more depth,in MY opinion remember,and have lasted for MANY more years than
the evolution theory has.That theory was created mainly by ONE man.....who DID NOT experience or see evolution take place, of course.Creationsim has existed long before the whole evolution thing has,
and had MANY followers before that thought even existed.

~Giroth

HOBBIT

06-09-2003, 03:14 PM

oh ok - so now only all real christians believe in creation?
Oh and your beliefs just have sooo much more depth than ours. "god created everything, period - im not even listening to you" So much depth ;)
Thats major bs giroth.

We did listen - and i even made a long post saying why your 'evidence' did not work. It is you who ignored us - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Basically you are afraid of death and want to believe in heaven. I too do not want to cease to exist after death - but if I do then so be it :P It does add up if you have a calculator - you are obviously doing some VERY faulty mental math

Oh and thanks Runiel - I meant physical evidence of creation - no quotes from the bible, please, rian.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-09-2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
And I have to agree with GrayMouser, your religion does not confine you to belief that evolution did not occur. Just because a person is a Christian does not mean that he/she closes their eyes to the evidence that is presented to him/her.

Sounds to me like that's what you said, Ruinel. ;)

Alien creation I would think would be a kind of theism. Where do you draw the line?

As for the others...well, let me change my statement to "the only other theory that's not too cockeyed to be believable." :p ;)

HOBBIT

06-09-2003, 03:16 PM

hmm, i should have quoted you because you keep editing your post! :P

For the record, she did say that only real true christians believed in creation, among other things.

Giroth

06-09-2003, 03:18 PM

HOBBIT................your IMPOSSIBLE

I am in no way afraid of death..........why should I?A person such as you should be MORE afraid of death,if anything;you don't believe in a heaven or HELL,so you might as well think you are gone forever when you die,and live completely ends.
To me,that is an empty life.......but I won't tell YOU how to live-don't tell me

~Giroth

Gwaimir Windgem

06-09-2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
I KNOW creationsim isn't just for christians.But my point is,REAL christians believe that the world was formed from creationism.

I must say, Giroth, that I disagree here. While I do believe in creationism, by no means do I rule out intelligently guided evolution; as I said before, I just think that special creation is more like God. But, the Bible details that salvation comes from believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord. I certainly think it's quite possible for a true Christian to believe in evolution.

Giroth

06-09-2003, 03:37 PM

hm.For a change,an actually GOOD point!

I suppose so.i am nor an expert,not am I a Bible thumpin church-person,
so I couldn't just tell you that's right or wrong.I'm simply a teen
who is a Christian.In MY opinion,if I
would not be a faithful Christian if I believed that God didn't
create us and that evolution was correct;because to ME,evolution is for the people who do not believe in God.
Remember,that's nothing more than MY opinion,so before you start telling me I'm wrong,remember,a person's opinion cannot be wrong;it can differ from your own,and if your wise you will not call ti wrong,but accept it.My opinion is not right,neither is it wrong.Same with all of you.:)

Have a nice day,

~Giroth

Gwaimir Windgem

06-09-2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Giroth
In MY opinion,if I
would not be a faithful Christian if I believed that God didn't
create us and that evolution was correct

Ah, but you can believe both. :) Lief, for instance, is probably one of the strongest Christians on the board, and I think he believes in divine evolution; that is, that God in His wisdom and power, divinely ordained and planned evolution, as His creation of mankind.

Your opinion thing brings up another very complex subject, on Right, Wrong, and Truth, but we'll leave that for another time. ;)

HOBBIT

06-09-2003, 03:48 PM

In my opinion your opinion is wrong - ha :P

Giroth

06-09-2003, 03:54 PM

gwaimir;I see your point.At least you can give a good point,unlike someone else I know.......J/KLOL

HOBBIT,that means nothing to me;your opinion is neither right nor wrong:p

And in return,In my opinion,your more stubborn than my dad,
and YOUR opinion is wrong;

but remember....it means nothing.........:p

~Giroth

Gwaimir Windgem

06-09-2003, 03:56 PM

In my opinion your opinion is wrong - ha :P

What, you don't think a Christian can believe in divine evolution? :p

HOBBIT

06-09-2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
What, you don't think a Christian can believe in divine evolution? :p

no, i was refering to giroth.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-09-2003, 04:04 PM

I know, I was joking. ;)

RÃan

06-09-2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
Ah, but he's talking about physical, reproducable evidence. Not what is written in the bible.

Of course, Ruinel! I realize that!

RÃan

06-09-2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
By the way, the theory of evolution does not encompasses how the universe was created. :)
In your opinion, does it include how life came about?

GrayMouser

06-10-2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Giroth
[B:
graymouser,

Think this way;if everything just sort of popped from evolution,does that mean everything just happened by chance?We live here for nothing,simply to live out our lives then die?say for example,the earth was created inthe big bang thing,but what triggered the big bang theory?if we evolved from monkies,the monkies evolved from amoebas,what did the amoebas evolve from,and so on and so on?
It doesn't all add up.

~Giroth [/B]

Giroth, I'm glad to hear you're learning more about evolution, even if you're not convinced- more knowledge is always a good thing, and after all, the first principle of war is to know your enemy.:)

First, evolution does not mean everything happened by chance- it's the interplay of chance and natural selection.

Do we live here for nothing? I don't know, and either way it is a philosophical/religious question that has nothing to do with the scientific arguments for the theory of evolution.

You have to keep things straight. The Earth was not created in the Big Bang, the entire Universe was. The Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago: the Big Bang happened about 15 billion years ago.

As to what triggered the Big Bang, there you're getting into cutting edge aspects of string theory, brane hypotheses, multiple universes, virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations; all that very weird cosmological stuff that is way beyond me- I've just read some popular articles. I can supply some links to the latest ideas, if anyone is interested.

We didn't evolve from monkeys, any more than you are descended from your cousin- we share a common ancestry, as does all life on Earth.

As to how life originally started, it's still an open question- people are working on it, but it's entirely possible that we'll never know for sure- as opposed to being able to form some pretty likely possible scenarios.

That's the thing about science -it can't promise you all the answers, it can only show you what we've got so far and offer a methodology for continuing the search.

As Nietszche said, "If you seek comfort, then believe; if you seek truth, then inquire."

Giroth

06-10-2003, 04:49 PM

very true:good to seek knowledge.:pI'm glad to see someone answer maturely here again.:)

I understand where your coming from,though.Even though I'm still not convinced,I see your reasoning.

You know,HOBBIT,if you didn't always just argue with me about the whole matter and take it like Graymouser,then maybe you could get your point across better.:p

Good for us ALL to know,maybe...:p

~Giroth

HOBBIT

06-10-2003, 06:30 PM

I was going to just ignore you but I'll comment on that. Just because I don't agree with you I'm not "answering you maturely? "
Of course, all your posts are at the pinacle of maturity:P
I guess you do not understand this, but I am not just disagreeing with everything you say for the sake of disagreeing with you - if you said something reasonable I would agree with you.

Gwaimir Windgem

06-10-2003, 09:15 PM

I doubt it. :p I consider divine evolution to be a completely reasonable concept, and if one sets aside the possibility of God, atheistic evolution is quite reasonable as well. But I don't agree with either. :p

Ruinel

06-11-2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
... a completely reasonable concept, and if one sets aside the possibility of God, atheistic evolution is quite reasonable as well. ....
WWWOOOOOOHHHHHHOOOOOOO!!!!!!! We have a convert!!!!!

Giroth

06-11-2003, 04:25 PM

HOBBIT,i said in my post that it was good for ALL of us to remember...........*sigh

It's not the disagreeing thing that made me say the maturity thing.It was exactly what you JUST did.........insults,and things of that sort."of course,your messages are at the pinacle of maturity"

that is not any good.I am not insulting you or anything like that.Graimir disagreed with me;but just explained why,without telling me how wrong I was and all that.Refrain from the insults and smarty comments,and just resolve to reasoning and stuff like that only.Same for me:p

~Giroth

RÃan

06-12-2003, 02:05 AM

OK - 3 end-of-school pool parties Monday, 2 graduations Tuesday, and now our family is done with school for now! - and now I'm ready to provide some evidence for creationism :)

I've been asked by some people on this thread to provide some scientific evidence for creationism, and I've seen evolutionists on this thread say they're willing to listen and consider. And I'd like to open with the following: I've been on Entmoot for almost a year now, and I have well over 2000 posts :eek: . I would hope that those of you that have read my posts would say that even if you don't agree with them, you can see that I've put time and thought into them. So I would like to ask for a moratorium on sarcasm and rolling eye smilies and things like that, and ask that instead you would politely, logically and (when appropriate) scientifically consider and discuss what I present here. Would you please? I can only ask, but I hope you guys will honor my request :)

So, I wanted to start by getting an agreed-upon wording of the question that I think both evolutionism and creationism are trying to answer. I would say it's basically the following: How did what we can observe around us arrive at its current state?

Is that ok, or would anyone like to offer another wording? I'd especially like to hear from the evolutionists.

Baby-K

06-12-2003, 02:29 AM

So I would like to ask for a moratorium on sarcasm and rolling eye smilies and things like that, and ask that instead you would politely, logically and (when appropriate) scientifically consider and discuss what I present here. Would you please? I can only ask, but I hope you guys will honor my request

I'd respect that (I hate when the good discussions start turning into wars to see who can be the most insulting without being banned) :)

So, I wanted to start by getting an agreed-upon wording of the question that I think both evolutionism and creationism are trying to answer. I would say it's basically the following: How did what we can observe around us arrive at its current state?

Is this an offshoot of the original question? I thought it was about whether or not evolution should be taught in schools. Perhaps not as replacement for religion, but as another alternative? :confused: ;)

I'm just wondering why this thread has turned into a religious debate. The two words that stood out for me in the title was EVOLUTION and SCHOOL, thus leading me to think that school policies would be discussed & whether or not evolution as a school subject would have the same merit as maths or any other subject. After all no-one disputes the validity of geology, archeology, entimology and all the other -ologies (all of which IMO to some extent support evolutionist theories), thus why question evolution as subject matter? Why would people necessarily believe that teaching evolution would be a replacement of religious teachings? I know in the US religion is mostly not taught at government schools, but why should evolution not be taught, after all evolutionism is not regarded as a religious movement, but rather that of scientific discovery.

We teach people everyday that social reform is necessary to develop lasting relationships, create world peace etc - what is that other than social evolution & if that is taught in sociology & psychology (all the Human Science classes), why would another branch of evolution necessarily have to be excluded?

RÃan

06-12-2003, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Baby-K
Is this an offshoot of the original question?
It's a response to requests from some people to provide some scientific evidence for creationism. The evaluation of the theories, both evolutionism and creationism, should have nothing to do with religion, IMO.

Hobbit said it was OK for me to share some evidence for creationism, and several people have asked for it, but he might want to reconsider.... what's the consensus? Should we start another thread? Or since it is obviously a related sub-topic, should we keep it here?

After all no-one disputes the validity of geology, archeology, entimology and all the other -ologies (all of which IMO to some extent support evolutionist theories), thus why question evolution as subject matter?
Because it doesn't end in "ology"! ;) And those "ologies" also (and to a greater extend, IMO) support creationism, BTW.

Why would people necessarily believe that teaching evolution would be a replacement of religious teachings? I know in the US religion is mostly not taught at government schools, but why should evolution not be taught, after all evolutionism is not regarded as a religious movement, but rather that of scientific discovery. I think evolution should be taught, as well as creation by intelligent design.