 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| Metal Knuckles Posts: 12/412 |
ZOMG! I just realized that I do believe in something divine, but only listen to Darwin's theory! Yegads, what a developement!
The common misconception people have is that Intelligent Design is simply Creationism without any reference to God in name. So let me define these three theories as I have seen over the years: Creationsim: The belief that God created the universe, seven days, apple, yadah yadah The basic proof creationist show is excerpts from the bible, and only so many sentences can be pulled out of there. And oh yeah, the bible's recieved revisions up the ying yang before the king whatitsname bible was published. So with that problem, the main idea behind Creationism is disproving any other theory that comes along, not supporting their own. "But what about dinosaurs?" They got killed in Noah's flood. "And the close relation to, oh say, chimpanzees?" Coincedance. Intelligent Design: The belief that something divine created the universe, or the real creationism argument. Above, I stated that there is a difference in Creationism and ID besides reference to God, and here it is: ID supporters gather scientific evidence. In turn, these are the real arguers of Creationism, AKA the threat. They point to scientific evidence and say that there are to many coincedances (the golden ration being an example) for it to all be random. All in all, actually a really good argument when viewed from a neuteral point. Evolution: The belief that humans evolved from a lesser form, monkeys and such, and that no holy influence happened at all. The other side of the argument. Darwin came up with the idea that human's evolved from lesser beings, one things worshippers of God disliked about him, and that no God influenced the creation of anything, another knife in the side. Just like ID, this is a real argument with scientific evidence, and therefore must be viewed by both sides heavily before being disproven, something that many ID believers and all Creationist seem to not do. The point does come up that near the end, Darwin believed that there was not nearly enough proof to support such a major theory, but in no way does that mean he didn't believe in it. So now that we got all three sides covered, let me go over another common misconception. By banning a theory of human creation from the biology class, in no way does that make discussion of it impossible. It just means that it can't be part of the mandatory school carriculum (help with spelling that please B/). So the argued point isn't being able to have it discussed in the class, but forcing it to be discussed. Now, I know that there is no such thing as a proven scientific theory, and that there is no absolute truth. But Darwin's theory does have substantial proof when compared to the other theories, and since many of the things taught in science are just theories, and many other potentially right theories are just waiting for more evidence to be taught in a class, the evolution theory being the only one taught is perfectly alright. ID and Creationism just need more proof, and given the way their activist go on about their research, it shouldn't be a problem. Second point. If one theory of human creationism based on a religion were to be taught, shouldn' that mean ALL theories of human creation from EVERY SINGLE RELIGION OUT THERE should be taught as well? And there simply isn't enough time in a school semester, or year for that matter, to discuss every one in detail. So in all reality, avoiding the mandatory teaching of a religion based theory might give a clearer image of the theory. By no means is the teaching of Creationism and ID not allowed in schools at this point. History and religion classes can cover these in any school. And without enough scientific proof, the theories should remain in a history or religion based class. I'm not saying this as a believer in evolution, or as some aetheist, but as someone looking at it with common sense. Anything that doesn't have as much scientific proof to prove it shouldn't be taught alongside other theories with a substantially higher amount. But I do believe in Christ! Merry Christmas! |
| Gavin Posts: 79/181 |
Originally posted by BookwormOriginally posted by Gavin Originally posted by Ziff Precisely. If you're in the minority professing to replace a theory well buttresed with fact with something that has no scientific or observable basis, can never be proven or unpoven, is supported by nothing, then as Ziff says onus r belong to you  
(p.s.: It also takes little effort to read books ) |
| emcee Posts: 86/867 |
Originally posted by Ziff Seems there are several threads not related to religion, people just don't seem too interested in debating those topics. Debating religion is silly. Its like arguing over which flavor of ice cream is the best, even if there is a right answer you'll never prove it to your opponent. On the one side you have Athiests who just think they're geniuses. Like they were sitting there one day and it suddenly occured to them that there's no real proof in God's existance, so now they must go point it out to the millions of people who have yet to realise it. Everybody over the age of 12 has already figured out that's there's no proof in God. It's common sense. But they think that if they keep pointing it out over and over, it will change people's minds. They're completely unable to grasp the concept that religion isn't about logic or proof, its about faith. If it was about logic, we wouldn't call it religion, we'd just call it science. And on the other side their are Christians, who apparently are so threathened by the logic of opposing views, that they feel they need to come up with their own logic to combat it. In essense, trying to turn their own religion into science, albeit flawed and illogical science. The real issue is their own lack of faith. If you believe in ID. Go right ahead, but don't try passing it off a science. It's not, and it just defeats the purpose of your own religion. If you don't believe in ID. Well don't then. But don't insult the intelligence of those who do by acting like they're just to stupid to see why you're right. |
| drjayphd Posts: 89/1170 |
Originally posted by Bookworm Backup? Are you even reading the same board as the rest of us? I WAS AND AM MOCKING YOU. Intelligent design is not a scientifically accepted theory. It is bullshit. Dracoon basically restated it in maybe a language you could understand. Who knows, maybe we could invent one that transcends the nature of matter and inflicts physical pain on you every time one of your statements is proven wrong. Originally posted by Bookworm Have you even heard of acceleration? Ye gods. |
| Ziff Posts: 250/1800 |
Um, the onus is on you to provide proper proven examples for us to refute with others. You've offered nothing but poor conjecture which I have shot down with definitive accuracy by explaining to you your whole Mt. St. Helen's thing. Which you promptly ignored.
You're being childish. Just stay out of this forum if you don't want to grow up and act like the big kids. |
| Deleted User Posts: 38/-7750 |
Originally posted by Gavin True, but it would be nice, and would give me something to debate against, and it would be more entertaining to try to brake the shroud. Your fingers can't be of the same length. He who plants thorns will never grow roses. It takes little effort to watch a man carry a load. |
| Gavin Posts: 78/181 |
Originally posted by Bookworm 1) I don't have to prove shit to you. 2) This discussion isn't about me defining faith. 3) Okay then, let's pretend for a second this small part of your bigger bullshit is true. I want to see this in every text-book in America. In fact, I'd love to see one for every theory, because I like killing trees and shit. That shit is funny to me (LOLZ)
|
| Deleted User Posts: 36/-7750 |
Originally posted by Gavin Translation: Give me an example. Blind could be something brainwashed into someone. Rational faith is having your faith be your own, not a parents because they say so, not your teacher because they say so, but how you percive life, the leap of faith to come to the conclusion. |
| Gavin Posts: 77/181 |
Originally posted by Bookworm I have a bridge I'd really like to sell you... |
| Deleted User Posts: 35/-7750 |
Blind faith... I see how it could be blind faith... but wait, faith can be rational.  |
| Gavin Posts: 76/181 |
Originally posted by Bookworm Right, because we all know what happens when you follow something blindly without any proof... oh wait...  |
| Deleted User Posts: 33/-7750 |
Originally posted by Lordlazer The people on this board debate on something they over look bloody examples that they can not fight. I'm not fighting against evolution as a whole, I'm fighting the unprovable parts like macro evolution aka mutation of kinds. Mount St. Helens disproves the millions of years that it takes for water to errosion, because according to the time theory that should have taken millions of years. Another problem with millions of years is the moon at the pace it is moving away from the earth it would have been so close it would have caused the world to flood every 2 hours. Who's to say I don't know what I'm talking about, I may just have trouble helping someone to see something in the same way. Who's to say I don't do my research, knowing how to learn from it, and how to overcome dyslexia. Maybe I can understand, maybe if I explain in the way I see, maybe it would confuse you do the point of a headache? |
| Ziff Posts: 248/1800 |
When the majority of the debates occuring are religion based... |
| emcee Posts: 85/867 |
Is it possible for people on this board to debate something besides religion? |
| Gavin Posts: 75/181 |
In related news:
ABC reports that "Evolution named 2005's top scientific breakthrough". To various Bookworm posts: LOLlerS8eS!11 Solidfying the original sentiments of the thread and answering the previous insane thread titled something like, "Does your insane cult allow you to not hate science and fact??"(... or something like that, I can't remember off the top of my head) is the following excerpt: Originally posted by a rational human being (edit: blah, BB code) |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 209/1697 |
Originally posted by Bookworm No, I see it as complete bullshit with no foundation what-so-ever. It's not even logical. Also in complete english to completely describe you in the rudest way possible... You are a complete dumbass that has no clue what you're talking about and is just reaching for strings and ends, you're trying to defend something that doesn't need to be defended because it doesn't matter to anything. If ID is shot down, what happens? Nothing. If evolution is shot down, what happens? We're reverted back to an illogical and completely based off faith answers. |
| Kutske Posts: 63/171 |
Bookworm, is that by any chance from a conlang you've devised? |
| Deleted User Posts: 32/-7750 |
Originally posted by CymoroOriginally posted by Bookworm There is not accurate translation to date of the language; it is mostly used to express what English can not. |
| Cymoro Posts: 94/-244 |
Originally posted by Bookworm Sorry, quick aside: If you're going to make snide comments or insults in another language, please just feel free to say it in English anyway. It doesn't make you cooler, nor does it make your argument more valid. The most it really does is make you look like an ass trying to be smarter. So please, refrain from it. Thanks. |
| Deleted User Posts: 31/-7750 |
The natural Glenpool mutation happens all the time, all that's needed is an eye for discovery.
Thanks for the back up drjayphd. The scientific definition of "theory" does not require one to be proven as fact to be accepted as such. In such as you all see ID as a theory... I don't remember if I brought this up before, but Mount St. Helens, and the mini Grand Canyon effect. Ko mitaka kobalu ta logic. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
