[xe0]

Debates like these are prone to have no conclusion.

It's a very similar topic in one respect to what gathers us all to this very forum. We all prefer the Macintosh platform.

Why? well thats up to the individual to tell you.

Regarding this topic; Some believe in one explanation, and yet others choose another direction.

Why? well thats up to the individual to tell you.

I personally don't think anyone should try and evangelize their belief to others in an arrogant fashion. After all, evolution, and religion are both based upon belief
And by verbally smashing people with your personal belief has some funky ramifications. What is the natural reaction, to the action of being force fed?

Now if you'll excuse me, I must go gib some bots

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by xe0:
After all, evolution, and religion are both based upon belief

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[entrox]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Yeah, that was my reaction, too. I honestly begin doubting the collective mental capacity of mankind. And here's the verdict in good ol' USENET tradition:

Code:
                      ______
                     /      \
                   .' PLEASE `.
                   |  DO NOT  |      _____
                   | FEED THE |    ,'.....`.
                   `. TROLLS ,'  ,'........ )
                     \_    _/   |........ ,'
                       |  |     `. .... _/
                       |  |      ,'.,'-'
                       |  |     /../
                       |  |   ,'.,'
                       |  |  /../
                     . |  | /..'
                   .\_\|  |/_/,
                   ___ |  | ___
                     . `--' .

It obviously is of no use discussing this any further.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Do you even know the story of the elephant man?

Yes I do indeed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by wataru:
"Save your energy and don't even bother with him. He's a troll. And no, I don't mean the elephant man.

I wasn't being a troll. I was making a point. The only trolling I see come from the anti-God zealots.

OMG U BELIEVE IN TEH BIBLE!! U R A RETARDO!111!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I wasn't being a troll. I was making a point. The only trolling I see come from the anti-God zealots.

OMG U BELIEVE IN TEH BIBLE!! U R A RETARDO!111!

Stop projecting, silly.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Stop projecting, silly.

I think you need to look up that word.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I think you need to look up that word.

No, Kevin, I think I don't.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xe0:
I personally don't think anyone should try and evangelize their belief to others in an arrogant fashion. After all, evolution, and religion are both based upon belief
And by verbally smashing people with your personal belief has some funky ramifications. What is the natural reaction, to the action of being force fed?

You'll never get the evolutionists to admit to that. No matter how true it is.

Both ideals are faith based.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Both ideals are faith based.

no

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
No, Kevin, I think I don't.

I wasn't projecting. Would you like me to list all the quotes that say basically that anyone that believes in the bible isn't very smart? I can if you wish.

no

Yes. There I showed you.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Both ideals are faith based.

nope.

once and for all:

religion = faith based

evolution = (scientific) material evidence based

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
nope.

once and for all:

religion = faith based

evolution = (scientific) material evidence based

(scientific) material evidence which is based on faith.

PROVE we came from single celled organisms that evolved over many years.

Wait, you can't. You have faith with the small amount of evidence that we are all linked that that is true.

Both are faith based. Like it or not. Admit it or not.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
(scientific) material evidence which is based on faith.

nope.

the base, is scientific theory, strongly supported by material (a VERY substantial amount) evidence.

religion (sic) has absolutely ZERO material evidence. and even worse, - there are many different religions, which makes it impossible to compare it to science (universal).

PROVE that the norse polytheic religion isn't real and chrsitianity is. they can't possibly both be true (not even in a very abstract metaphorical way).

wait...you can't. why? you have ZERO material evidence.

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
(scientific) material evidence which is based on faith.

PROVE we came from single celled organisms that evolved over many years.

Wait, you can't. You have faith with the small amount of evidence that we are all linked that that is true.

Both are faith based. Like it or not. Admit it or not.

Sperm meets Egg. Creates a one cell organisms. Each cell then divides over the period of a few weeks. After 9 months, a human is born.

Proof completed.


Now, it's your turn. Ask God to make a man out of sand.

[benign]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
nope.

once and for all:

religion = faith based

evolution = (scientific) material evidence based

Religion = faith based: no evidence, just
closed fairy tales told by the megalomaniacal.
... and a lie of immortality.

Scientific = material evidence based:
Prosaic but always open to a new paradigm.
Theory through consensus rather than
unquestionable archaic laws upheld by
punishment.

... and that humans mostly prefer
supernatural superstitious stories
over the prosaic world of common
sense shows what a lazy, unthinking
species we really are.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by benign:
... and that humans mostly prefer
supernatural superstitious stories
over the prosaic world of common
sense shows what a lazy, unthinking
species we really are.

to be fair, one would have to take into consideration that most humans alive today don't have the same access to information, nor do they have the same financial and social basis for a good education.

which makes it even more embarrassing when people, who actually do, resort to superstition in spite of having access to info and facts.

[RooneyX]

The fact that there are still so many creationists around in this modern era proves we are still among the monkees.

I predict this thread will be 20 pages long and that 5 well spoken rationalists, 2 piss taking rationalists and 20 flocking Christians will be headbanging the walls for days.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Sperm meets Egg. Creates a one cell organisms. Each cell then divides over the period of a few weeks. After 9 months, a human is born.

Proof completed.


Now, it's your turn. Ask God to make a man out of sand.

You'll piss of al-Qaeeeeda with that scientific logic. The Koran says sperm comes from the kidneys and man is made form mud (but of course we rationalists know that the Arabs got the first theory from poor Greek anatomical knowledge and that man from dust is a simple way of saying we are all organic matter...we are all made of stars).

[hyteckit]

Anyway, let us get back to topic.

What Georgia is doing is absolutely wrong. Not teaching students about evolution is absolutely stupid. Evolution is the binding force of all biological research. This will hurt a child's future.

The public schools should be responsible for teaching our kids the most widely accepted theories in science. If you don't believe in it, that is fine. You are free to teach your child other theories. You don't punish other kids just because you don't believe in a widely accepted theory. Children go to school to be educated, not to be preach to.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Anyway, let us get back to topic.

What Georgia is doing is absolutely wrong. Not teaching students about evolution is absolutely stupid. Evolution is the binding force of all biological research. This will hurt a child's future.

The child's future is well-respected by the Christian Taleban providing those children go to church and help certain political movements one day.

It all boils down to creating future support for neo-conservatives. Start them off young, groom them like Hitler's Youth and ouila, you have a Mr and Miss Brainwash one day. Comfort in masses.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
It all boils down to creating future support for neo-conservatives. Start them off young, groom them like Hitler's Youth and ouila, you have a Mr and Miss Brainwash one day. Comfort in masses.

100% correct.

[wataru]

Zimphire, you need to take a science class. I can practically smell your ignorance from all the way over here.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
nope.

the base, is scientific theory, strongly supported by material (a VERY substantial amount) evidence.

religion (sic) has absolutely ZERO material evidence. and even worse, - there are many different religions, which makes it impossible to compare it to science (universal).

PROVE that the norse polytheic religion isn't real and chrsitianity is. they can't possibly both be true (not even in a very abstract metaphorical way).

wait...you can't. why? you have ZERO material evidence.

Polytheistic religions make more sense when you consider the deities each represent forces of nature, virtues or personify things such as love, hate, war, etc.

But even that creates ignorance. If you tell people the symbol of the beatle represents the turning of time sooner or later you'll get people worshipping beatles. That's exactly what happened in Egypt.

Likewise if you tell people there is an invisible force surrounding you that can move the land, mold lifeforms out of clay, give the breath of life to all living things, make the sea part etc how many people will actually say you're talking about air?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by wataru:
Zimphire, you need to take a science class. I can practically smell your ignorance from all the way over here.

Silly.

I've taken many.

I am not so self deluded to admit my beliefs are faith based.

Nor does it bother me to admit such a thing.

Then again, I am secure with my beliefs.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am not so self deluded to admit my beliefs are faith based.

Nor does it bother me to admit such a thing.

Then again, I am secure with my beliefs.

So you consider it delusion to think that beliefs are based on faith? Yet you have no problem admitting that yours are?

So you're secure in your beliefs even though you admittedly delude yourself into thinking they're based on faith?

[nforcer]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Anyway, let us get back to topic.

What Georgia is doing is absolutely wrong. Not teaching students about evolution is absolutely stupid. Evolution is the binding force of all biological research. This will hurt a child's future.

The public schools should be responsible for teaching our kids the most widely accepted theories in science. If you don't believe in it, that is fine. You are free to teach your child other theories. You don't punish other kids just because you don't believe in a widely accepted theory. Children go to school to be educated, not to be preach to.

[xe0]

Originally posted by xe0:
Debates like these are prone to have no conclusion.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
So you consider it delusion to think that beliefs are based on faith?

No I think people are deluding themselves when they think a lot of their believes aren't based on faith.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No I think people are deluding themselves when they think a lot of their believes [sic] aren't based on faith. [/B]

The trouble with your argument is that there is a huge gulf between saying something is "logically unprovable but virtually certain" and saying it's "faith-based."

We don't know the sun will rise tomorrow. We can be pretty damn sure it will, because we understand a great deal about how the sun works and we'd know if it were on the verge of snuffing out or blowing up. So while we can have near-absolute certainty that the sun will rise, we don't have absolute certainty; logically, we cannot.

Nothing like that level of certainty can be applied to questions of religious dogma. Did God create man and the universe? Many people feel he did, and have every right to feel so, but that's as far as it can go: there's simply no evidentiary basis for concluding that it's at all likely. It is, simply, something one accepts on faith.

You seek to draw a dogmatic line in the sand and claim that because absolute certainty is impossible in either case, that both beliefs are equally valid. That is demonstrably not so, because the former "belief" is the result of well-tested scientific principles, the same principles we rely on unthinkingly when we get on a plane, go for an x-ray, or whatever. We don't have to guess that that plane is going to fly; so long as the equipment is working and the people involved are doing their jobs, we know it's going to fly, because we understand how and why it flies; there is nothing mysterious or supernatural at work.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Silly.

I've taken many.

I am not so self deluded to admit my beliefs are faith based.

Nor does it bother me to admit such a thing.

Then again, I am secure with my beliefs.

How about this: You need to take a science class with an open mind.

Pay attention to the class impartially, without instantly forming the brick wall of "Oh, this is crap, because it contradicts my beliefs" inside your head.

Think objectively, if you can. Do it for yourself, because you're cheating yourself otherwise. Try to consider the possibility that science doesn't invalidate your religion, but that the two could have separate purposes.

Open your mind. You owe it to yourself.

[Zimphire]

Ah the old "open your mind" lecture.

Is it mind opening to force yourself to believe something you don't?

I am all about being open minded. But I wont spread my minds legs and whore it out to just any idea.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Ah the old "open your mind" lecture.

Is it mind opening to force yourself to believe something you don't?

I am all about being open minded. But I wont spread my minds legs and whore it out to just any idea.

No, it's not about forcing yourself to believe anything. It's just opening your mind, nothing more, nothing less.

I came from the same background as you. I grew up with the fundamentalist Christian stuff as well, and I know the mental block whenever you receive some information that conflicts with your pre-conceived opinions. For me, the change came when I took a beginning chemistry class and learned about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, what it actually is, and how it works, and when I started to think, "hey, this isn't what I've been told all my life!" At first, I was disappointed at the loss of an argument, but later I had other similar revelations, and came to a realization about things.

You're forcing yourself to believe now. What I'm asking is that you take a science class without that mindset. Look at the evidence honestly and objectively, without coloring it in any way. That's all I'm asking.

[Zimphire]

Actually you don't know what my background is.

And I used to be a avid supporter of such beliefs.

I wasn't always a Christian.

[Gee4orce]

Let's get one thing straight - there are quite a few holes in Darwinian evolutionary theory. Now I'm not suggesting that means creationism is the answer, because I think Darwinism is 99% correct. It's just got a few holes.

Have a read about Panspermia to see what I mean.

Darwinism requires several thing to have happened simoultaneously in order for it to work. For instance, which came first - sexual reproduction or male and female sexes ? You can't have one without the other...

There just hasn't been enough TIME on Earth for all this to have happened randomly. Panspermia suggests that evolution began aeons ago in deep space, in comets and stars. Genetic material arrived here complete, like building blocks. Life on earth has been a process of assembling these building blocks, and introduction of new building blocks by viruses. Sex is a method of error provention, removing spurious random mutations. Panspermia is kind of like evolution turned on it's head, with a creationist twist.

What I really like about the idea of Panspermia is this :

* it's a better evolutionary model than Darwinism
* it allows - no, requires - that life is Universal (with a capital 'U')
* it's better at explaining the observable data than Darwinism
* it answers the thorny question about evolution that tend to get sidestepped
* it doesn't preclude 'divine intervention' - so it keeps the creationists happy too ! (perhaps the genes themselves were created whole).

It's well worth reading about, if you are an open minded individual.

Oh - and there is good evidence to support it. Spectral analysis of interstellar dust has failed to pinpoint what that dust is made of - until someone thought to see if bacterial spores might fit the profile. It was a perfect fit.

[entrox]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Let's get one thing straight - there are quite a few holes in Darwinian evolutionary theory. Now I'm not suggesting that means creationism is the answer, because I think Darwinism is 99% correct. It's just got a few holes.

Well, there are holes in every theory. Relativity breaks down at very small scales; Quantum mechanics break down at big scales (or better: higher energy levels). This just means that our current models aren't perfect. Panspermia is an interesting alternative to abiogenesis, but the proponents of this hypothesis often employ pseudo-scientific reasoning, which makes me be a little careful.

Darwinism requires several thing to have happened simoultaneously in order for it to work. For instance, which came first - sexual reproduction or male and female sexes ? You can't have one without the other...

This is an argument from incredulity: just because nobody right now is able to explain it, doesn't mean that an explanation in the context of evolution isn't possible. It is very much possible that a gradual process happened, starting from asexual, single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information directly [1]. There are also a few hypotheses on why sexual reproduction might be evolutionary favourable, which would allow natural selection to have taken place [2], but you already seem to be aware of them.

There just hasn't been enough TIME on Earth for all this to have happened randomly.

This is only an issue if you think of the process as purely random and strictly sequential, which is not the case. I'm not sure if you're just talking about evolution starting from single-celled organisms or the forming of these organisms itself. Different arguments may apply.

Panspermia suggests that evolution began aeons ago in deep space, in comets and stars. Genetic material arrived here complete, like building blocks. Life on earth has been a process of assembling these building blocks, and introduction of new building blocks by viruses. Sex is a method of error provention, removing spurious random mutations. Panspermia is kind of like evolution turned on it's head, with a creationist twist.

One could apply the same argument about probability here: space is gigantic. What are the odds that a packet of genetic material flies light-years through space and just happens to hit the earth? It should be literally crawling with such packets out there.

* it's a better evolutionary model than Darwinism
* it allows - no, requires - that life is Universal (with a capital 'U')
* it's better at explaining the observable data than Darwinism
* it answers the thorny question about evolution that tend to get sidestepped

Could you please elaborate?

Oh - and there is good evidence to support it. Spectral analysis of interstellar dust has failed to pinpoint what that dust is made of - until someone thought to see if bacterial spores might fit the profile. It was a perfect fit.

This highlights another "hole" in this hypothesis: where did that come from? It is essentially the same problem as abiogenesis.

[1] Kondrashov, Alexy S., 1997. Evolutionary genetics of life cycles. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 391-435.
[2] Barton, N.H. & Charlesworth, B., 1998. Why sex and recombination? Science 281: 1986-1990.

[RooneyX]

My prediction is coming true. I'm psychic. All your minds are belong to me.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Gee4orce:
What I really like about the idea of Panspermia is this :

* it's a better evolutionary model than Darwinism
* it allows - no, requires - that life is Universal (with a capital 'U')
* it's better at explaining the observable data than Darwinism
* it answers the thorny question about evolution that tend to get sidestepped
* it doesn't preclude 'divine intervention' - so it keeps the creationists happy too ! (perhaps the genes themselves were created whole).

This is odd, because panspermia has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, unless it argues that complete and final organisms fell out of the sky - you know, millions of brontosaurs one century, hundreds of thousands of wooly mammoths one decade, a couple million Neanderthalers the next, homo sapiens thrown in...

Panspermia addresses the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Evolution addresses the ORIGIN OF SPECIES.

The existence of life is a prerequisite for its evolution.

The concepts are related, but as a Detroit car factory and driving lessons/traffic regulations.

-s*

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
This is odd, because panspermia has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, unless it argues that complete and final organisms fell out of the sky - you know, millions of brontosaurs one century, hundreds of thousands of wooly mammoths one decade, a couple million Neanderthalers the next, homo sapiens thrown in...

-s*

Someone asked how a single cell could create a fully formed human or something. They got an answer.

Regarding evolution though, it is about a specie adapting to current and new environments and physical stresses in order to survive. You cannot for a single second doubt it happens. Go out in the hot sun and watch yourself tan. That's an evolution that can be seen in one single day. Lift weights and watch how your body reacts to that. Again, this is how many mammals have grown so huge or strong.

And the idea that there is a missing link is a myth that gives creationists, Talebans and terrorists great comfort. The reality is evolution does not happen at a regular calculable rate. It has an irregular momentum. Sometimes environmental stresses can punish a specie for many generations and then suddenly within a few generations a rapid evolution can occur, especially if the specie is threatened with exctinction. Sometimes th evolution doesn't occur in time and a specie dies out. Sometimes even the wrong choices are made. The Dodo is a perfect example of a specie taking it easy, getting lazy, losing it's ability to fly and then not having time to evolve when a new threat emerges.

Kinda like religion.