What I’m defending is “possibility”. Dismissing one side of this argument out of hand because it doesn’t feel or sound right is “prejudice” not “science”. Science disproves a theory not dismisses it and no one can disprove either of these theories. No one definitively knows the origin of life. If the creationists are correct we’ll find out one day: if the evolutionists are correct it doesn’t matter!
-
AnyStream is having some DRM issues currently, Netflix is not available in HD for the time being.
Situations like this will always happen with AnyStream: streaming providers are continuously improving their countermeasures while we try to catch up, it's an ongoing cat-and-mouse game. Please be patient and don't flood our support or forum with requests, we are working on it 24/7 to get it resolved. Thank you.
Expelled No Intelligence Allowed DVD
- Thread starter BDMinus
- Start date
- Status
What I’m defending is “possibility”. Dismissing one side of this argument out of hand because it doesn’t feel or sound right is “prejudice” not “science”. Science disproves a theory not dismisses it and no one can disprove either of these theories. No one definitively knows the origin of life. If the creationists are correct we’ll find out one day: if the evolutionists are correct it doesn’t matter!
If it's not falsifiable, it's not science, it's as simple as that. You seem to be arguing science vs. religion, and while I don't agree with you either on those points, I am not debating them (not here anyway). I am talking about religion as science. It's just a matter of believing if religious belief should be taught in science classes.
Yes, it has it's roots there... but what you fail to note is that it backfired on them. It deviated from plan as more people picked up the ball and ran.
ID as it's NOW defined has such a broad range of possibilities so as to be offensive to Christian Creationists. It was a PR move - but it's since got a life of it's own - so to speak.
-W
I'm too pessimistic to be glad even about such an intellectual and (less importantly to me) legal massacre they suffered at Dover. They are still moving the goalposts, the latest buzz words I think were "teach the controversy", if they haven't already moved from there.
It's true though that super-star Billy Dembski couldn't even show his face there. The more the fundamentalist christian base is alienated by their apparent more-inclusiveness, though, the more attractive they become to mainstream world religions. The current pope has been known to be somewhat parital to it, despite John Paul being fairly science-friendly before him.
I'm only arguing evolution vs. ID. They are both religions just depends on what you put your faith in. In my opinion neither should be taught as science.
Clams
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 7,286
- Likes
- 358
I think what I'm saying is that ID does not even require a "god" per-se anymore. It's grown to include "seeding" of life on many planets etc etc. It's as hard to "disprove" ID as it is to "conclusively prove" evolution.
This not to mention evolution as the vehicle set forth by the ID author - mucking the 2 sides together. ie the "evolution is here, but it was put here."
arguments.
I'm not uncormfortable teaching "no matter how it got here, this is how it works."
-W
Oh come on! Can't you think a way in which evolution is falsifiable?
I don't know about that. Scientists as far as I know are good with hypotheses that the first protocells or molecules able to reproduce could have come from somewhere else in space, but that doesn't mean any design, doesn't it? IDers still insist about there being an intelligence designing and meddling here and there our DNA, if not just plainly putting us here mind and flesh.
I am dismissing ID simply because there are no facts to base it on. It is all spin. A PR stunt to get religion into our science classes.
Creationism isn't correct nor does it hold any ground on how we came about, it is just part of religion. No ifs or buts about it. Evolution is the accepted model world wide, religious nutters will just have to live with it. Learn about ID in Sunday school (even that is wrong).
Last edited:
That's all I'm saying too. I agree with the "wrong" part, but it's very easy to make it sound like we want to make it illegal or somehow ban it. Of course not (not most of us evil "evolutionists" anyway). Keep science and religion where they belong in public education.
And I didn't catch this before:
Spanky, I think right there that's your problem. 99.99999% of evolution right now doesn't deal with the origin of life (some people say that evo doesn't deal with the origin at all), that's an area called abiogenesis. That's what I said creationists should be attacking instead of evolution (of course I don't think they should be attacking any science with religion, but it seems they like to attack regardless). By the way, attacking science with science is science, just to make the distinction. That's the error self-correcting mechanism of science. It's always skeptical about itself.
Actually that's not a problem. But to assume there's always two equivalent sides to every issue is. Evolution has no contest. Evidence speaks. The fact that you're treating evolution as abiogenesis means that I'm sorry, but you don't understand evolution.
And by the way, if you think there's two sides of this, why not three or four then? Have you ever heard about lamarckism?
And by the way, if you think there's two sides of this, why not three or four then? Have you ever heard about lamarckism?
mmdavis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 3,533
- Likes
- 336
I was wondering how long it would take before someone who chooses to believe God and the Bible would be called a nutcase or something similar. Religion has been a part of the USA from it's start. Over the last decades, God has been taken out of the homes, classroom, government, workplaces, etc. The result? This country is becoming more agnostic and socialistic every day. Without God, you have no morals except those that each person chooses for him/herself.
By the way, you better hope the nutcases are wrong. Eternity would be a very long time to ponder how wrong you were.
DrinkLyeAndDie
Retired Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 11,822
- Likes
- 469
Please remember the forum rules, linx05. Your statement is insulting to some and inflammatory in nature.
Last edited:
When it comes down to agreeing that evolution is correct or I am ignorant, it is time to disengage. Later.
While I didn't want to use the word ignorant, we all are ignorant about many things. Hey, that's exactly why I hang around these forums. But, it's a curable condition. Science is there in the open to be learned, not to be guessed from what non-scientists would like to make you believe.
mmdavis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 3,533
- Likes
- 336
alright everyone....group hug!
Time to agree to disagree.
Webslinger
Retired Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 27,343
- Likes
- 5
Okay. I think I've had about enough of this thread.
Most of you have had a chance to express your opinions.
Further posts are unlikely to serve any useful purpose.
Thread closed.
oliceman:
Most of you have had a chance to express your opinions.
Further posts are unlikely to serve any useful purpose.
Thread closed.
oliceman:
Last edited:
Clams
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 7,286
- Likes
- 358
National Religions?
Mr. Slinger: It's not my intent to restart a closed thread that was going nowhere. But rather, to start a new thread that may go nowhere even faster.
I want to take this totally out of the context of the old thread; and focus on something else.
First of all, I think you'll find that religion has been a part of most all countries from the start. If you want to take a USA centric approach, that's fine; but most/many countries have strong religious undertones in thier founding documents.
I'll point out that the "Founding Fathers" of the USA were every bit as much of the "Masonic" persuasion as they were of the "Christian" persuasion. It's also intersting to note that the charter of the USA not only guarantees "freedom of religion" but also "freedom from religion".
Everytime I hear someone use the "for God and Country" lines - I get nervous. My mind wanders to much of the Ilamic world where "God and Country" are linked in ways that severely limit human freedoms. You say: "Without God, you have no morals except those that each person chooses for him/herself." I dissagree, as many moral codes are part of law without any religious reference point needed. I don't feel that people of differing or no religions can't still have a fairly common moral compass. I don't need any religious belief to tell me that hitting an old lady over the head and taking her purse is prima-facie wrong - do you??
So when you talk of wanting to re-inject God into the good old USA - Is that the Christian view of God you refer to, or the Islamic view of God? Or is there a third option kinda like a "Christian Taliban" that would seek to impose it's religious teachings, customs, and penalties, into civil law?
The Christian Bible in the last section clearly explains the fate of "The Nations of The World". Nowhere in that document is an exception made for the "Good Old US of A" so long as it "Turns back to God".
In fact nothing like that is stated - and those who try to write that in on thier own are in violation of the last paragraph of the document where adding or ammending the text is strictly prohibited.
-W
Mr. Slinger: It's not my intent to restart a closed thread that was going nowhere. But rather, to start a new thread that may go nowhere even faster.
mmdavis said:
I want to take this totally out of the context of the old thread; and focus on something else.
First of all, I think you'll find that religion has been a part of most all countries from the start. If you want to take a USA centric approach, that's fine; but most/many countries have strong religious undertones in thier founding documents.
I'll point out that the "Founding Fathers" of the USA were every bit as much of the "Masonic" persuasion as they were of the "Christian" persuasion. It's also intersting to note that the charter of the USA not only guarantees "freedom of religion" but also "freedom from religion".
Everytime I hear someone use the "for God and Country" lines - I get nervous. My mind wanders to much of the Ilamic world where "God and Country" are linked in ways that severely limit human freedoms. You say: "Without God, you have no morals except those that each person chooses for him/herself." I dissagree, as many moral codes are part of law without any religious reference point needed. I don't feel that people of differing or no religions can't still have a fairly common moral compass. I don't need any religious belief to tell me that hitting an old lady over the head and taking her purse is prima-facie wrong - do you??
So when you talk of wanting to re-inject God into the good old USA - Is that the Christian view of God you refer to, or the Islamic view of God? Or is there a third option kinda like a "Christian Taliban" that would seek to impose it's religious teachings, customs, and penalties, into civil law?
The Christian Bible in the last section clearly explains the fate of "The Nations of The World". Nowhere in that document is an exception made for the "Good Old US of A" so long as it "Turns back to God".
In fact nothing like that is stated - and those who try to write that in on thier own are in violation of the last paragraph of the document where adding or ammending the text is strictly prohibited.
-W
Last edited:
- Status