Debate and Discussion

Do you believe in evolution?
ozoneocean at 6:14AM, Jan. 10, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,971
joined: 1-2-2004
Oh you great big sillyhead Cham!!!!!!!

I wasn't referring to you or intending to insult you. Never. Not at all!.
You're obviously one of the ones I would be calling “educated and enlightened”, even a “smarty”!
It's just the tone of “evolution” debates that gets me. They always go exactly the same way: “people who know VS people that don't”
All the same points, arguments and definitions are always covered. I think we even had this debate at least 2 or 3 times before in the DD debate forums and each time it was the same thing.
People “pro” evolution are always in the majority because they have the advantage of almost 150 years of scientific research to draw on.
We only ever have about 20% at most for the other side, and all they ever have to back them up are misunderstood rumours about evolution, the bible, or half assed pseudo theories like ID.
It’s like having a soccer game where 30 people who know how to play soccer team up against 5 people who don’t. Not much of a game…

The “debate” becomes yet another session of “educate the heathens”.
That’s why I suggested topics we could really debate, given our overly pro evolution majority.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
hpkomic at 6:42AM, Jan. 10, 2006
(online)
posts: 943
joined: 1-1-2006
But rubbing our intelligence and evidence in the faces of those that disagree is what makes life worth living. :D
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
LostPriestess at 12:18AM, Jan. 11, 2006
(offline)
posts: 43
joined: 1-6-2006
Jadedwinter71
Oh lets all remember

evolution is a “Theory” not a “fact” so we can't really take it seriously ^^

Much like gravity is a theory.


In the scientific comunity, theory has a bit of a diffrent conotation than in common vernacular. It is an idea that is strongly supported by facts, and generaly accepted as true.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Anonymous at 6:43AM, Jan. 11, 2006
(offline)
posts: 678
joined: 4-22-2006
hpkomic
Jadedwinter71
Oh lets all remember

evolution is a “Theory” not a “fact” so we can't really take it seriously ^^

Dear god I hope that's sarcasm on your part.

With such a slew of evidence in it's favor, it's odd evolution is still considered “theory”, we've even seen it in action and we still consider it a theory.

Quite confounding.


BULL SH*T!

I was serious. Evolution has to many flaws in its theory. When I seen them work out those “Flaws” I'll start giving it some credit.

//I'm Jadedwinter71
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:53AM
Chameloncholic at 10:26AM, Jan. 11, 2006
(online)
posts: 459
joined: 1-3-2006
No, I'm fed up. Why do I have to bring it, why don't you bring it for once?

Go on, make your case.

It's clear you skipped over my actual defination of theory for someones less reasoned statement. I lends absolutly no credence to your argument when you do that.

So let us begin, what evidence does the big bang (also a theory) throw in the face of evolution. Oh and if you're about to try that whole second law of thermodynamics thing it's going to make you look very silly.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:39AM
SpANG at 12:31PM, Jan. 11, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
ozoneocean
I really hate these evolution debates.
They just turn into “the smarties who know about evolution Vs the dummies who don't” :P
And then we get some definitions of theory thrown in as well.
:P Well, here's dictionary.com's definition, which is what I tend to lean towards, because, you know they research this stuff:
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
  • 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
    2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
    3. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience
    4. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.
    5. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
  • Like it or not, in the end Intelligent Design* and Evolution are both just theories.

    The difference is that while Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, based on solid fact and hypothisized, Intellegent Design* is a FAITH-BASED THEORY.

    Faith-based theories by definition are harder to prove, because they don't rely on “fact”. It relies on FAITH, and proof (convieniently) denies faith.

    Should Intellegent Design* be taught in SCIENCE class? Hell, no!
    It has no scientific fact to it. That doesn't mean that Intellegent Design*, Evolution, Scientology, and whatever other theories out there shouldn't be taught in a Philosophy class, though. No, that's what Philosophy is all about.
    Of course, you shouldn't confuse it with theology class, because that IS religious (and God specific).

    *Oh, and…
    Adrian L. Melott
    “Intellegent Design” is creationism in a cheap tuexdo.
    Yep.

    .: SpANG! :.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:51PM
ozoneocean at 2:59PM, Jan. 11, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,971
joined: 1-2-2004
And so it goes on…
Debating the appropriate type of class to teach these in? Now that has some prospects.
There's a school being sued right now for teaching ID in a philosophy class. So it's not just where you teach it, but how. -Basically they're using the philosophy class thing as a loophole to preach the primacy of ID over evolution: Different class, same propaganda.

But mostly we've still got lonely individuals here like Jadedwinter71, who know virtually nothing about the science and theory of evolution, arguing with all the rest of us who do.

Jadedwinter71 and the other two or three that don't “believe” in evolution, you guys need to stop trying to argue and start reading about evolution instead. There's mountains of material. You'll learn something. And if you STILL think evolution is a load of crap after reading a few books on it, (real scientific books that is), then you'll be in a MUCH better position to argue against it.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
SpANG at 5:33PM, Jan. 11, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
ozoneocean
And so it goes on…
Debating the appropriate type of class to teach these in? Now that has some prospects.
There's a school being sued right now for teaching ID in a philosophy class. So it's not just where you teach it, but how. -Basically they're using the philosophy class thing as a loophole to preach the primacy of ID over evolution: Different class, same propaganda.

Yeah, I heard this on NPR today. I would have no problem if they labeled it as a Theology class. But showing just one view is not a true philosophy class.

.: SpANG! :.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:51PM
LostPriestess at 12:44AM, Jan. 12, 2006
(offline)
posts: 43
joined: 1-6-2006
Jadedwinter71
lostpriestess
much like gravity is a theory.


In the scientific comunity, theory has a bit of a diffrent conotation than in common vernacular. It is an idea that is strongly supported by facts, and generaly accepted as true.

I don't believe its true, hell I don't even like creationism. I give evolution credit on a great theory, but the fact that alot of their infomation doesn't add up in the end (Big bang theory for one).

I have a slew of arguments so bring it, I'm ready.

And have a beer and a chemestry degree. Let's play.

What about the big bang dosen't make sense? Let's atart from there. I have heard people say that it dosen't add up before, but most of them are just saying that it dosen't make sense becuase they are misinformed about it, or do not understand how it works/worked.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
mykill at 7:41AM, Jan. 12, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
I believe Evolution is a theory (PROVEN for several kinds of life not our own) based on scientific observation and subject to the rigours of scientific method.

God isn't observable per se. He has no business in science.

The BIG Bang is a theory unrelated to evolution. Non sequitor it is.

Science pretty much acknowledges the “Big Bang” is a dubious premise. But science is waiting for a story that better describes the observable facts (Like the universe still expanding..etc.) before discarding the “big bang”.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
Mike_G at 3:07PM, Jan. 13, 2006
(offline)
posts: 106
joined: 1-2-2006
What I see being the hardest part of this is seeing these thoughts from outside ourselves.

Lemme throw this out there: Alot of the trouble with hardcore creationists accepting evolution is giving up our divine providence. If we evolved from neanderahootie(I'm NOT a scholar, just a thinker) and they evolved from dinasaurs, and they evolved from fish, and they evolved from paramecium, then isn't it possible that we're not the end-all be-all? Movies like the Matrix and Akira have a deep rooting in the fear of what's to come.

That being said, I whole-heartedly adhear to both creationism _and_ evolutionism; one of my main mantras is that all thoughts and theories are based in fact, then wildly over thought/exagerated.

Where this gets sticky is that, with all the ways you can look at things, with their many branches, there's bound to be atleast two people who disagree on just about everything. IMO, that's part of how things are supposed to work… :twisted: :!:
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:01PM
Mike_G at 12:04AM, Jan. 14, 2006
(offline)
posts: 106
joined: 1-2-2006
:shock: Got me there, “Intelligent Design” is a new term for me, with different connotations. Please, no pun intended, just out of the loop. In that case, I guess it covers where I sit quite well.

Still, …no, pretty much covered. To be honest though, that puts ID squarely in the middle. With what ozoneocean said about it being taught, and the following suit, that gives me hope that we've progressed towards a unified theory. Very exciting!

I like SpANG!s point about diversity in education aswell. There's always been a trend towords sidelining new or unpopular beliefs, and for a multitude of reasons. I could throw a handful at you, but then, that'd be either preaching to the choir or beating my head against a wall, and that's only fun if there's candy involved :>

It'll be interesting to see where this leads in 10-20 years. :wink:
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:01PM
marine at 12:29AM, Jan. 14, 2006
(offline)
posts: 2,425
joined: 1-6-2006
I belive in existentialism. The entire world is a dream and nothing more then my imagination. The entire universe revolves directly around me.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
ozoneocean at 3:34AM, Jan. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,971
joined: 1-2-2004
FinbarReilly
1) Keep in mind that creationism and ID are two seperate animals. Creationism is a literal interpretation of the Bible, and ID is evolution, but with a slight religious twist. There's a huge difference between them; please quit confusing them…FR
To some they are, to some they aren't. Beliefs and interpretation of theory vary widely.
FinbarReilly
2) I also love how the non-religious also figure that the religious have lowered intelligence. It always amuses me how they become the things that they hate religion for the most (intolerant of ideas other than their own, for example).
This isn't a case of “religious Vs non-religious”: People who subscribe to evolution can be just as religious as anyone else.
It's a case of "people who know evolution and maybe some or lots of science Vs people who only know about evolution, and bugger-all at that.
FinbarReilly
3) That said: It needs to be noted that Darwin set out to prove evolution wrong, but couldn't. He still ascribed religious overtones to it, however, as he saw part of God's handiwork in it. Something else that tends to be forgotten…
I really don't know where you get that Finbar, perhaps it tends to be forgotten because it's not true? Darwin was quite religious to start with, he came from a very religious family, but he put that aside for his science. He didn't “set out to prove evolution wrong”, he devoloped the whole theory! -he would only ever be testing his own assumptions, not trying to “prove evolution wrong”.
And in later life his journals as well as the accounts of his circle of friends show he became an athiest.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
ozoneocean at 12:50PM, Jan. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,971
joined: 1-2-2004
This is how you deal with quotes when they’re too long :D

FinbarReilly
…when tainted blood is still getting in the system).
Ok, this whole point is very fragile. The problem with ID is that it’s out to displace real science. ID is not scientific. There’s no getting around that. You can do a bit of science and then you hit the brick wall of sheer faith. The blood thing was just plain stupid Finbar. That mainly religious taboo against blood donation cost a LOT of lives and it held the science of blood donation back about 300 years.
They could do transfusions pretty well back in the 1500’s. They made a few mistakes and caused a few deaths, but as the surgeons were allowed to practise their craft, that improved. In fact, lovely though religion is, and I truly appreciate its many wonderful gifts to humanity throughout the centuries, it has CONSTANTLY and deliberately held back the course of medical science and it’s still doing that today with: the stem cell issue and anything related to abortions, genetics…

FinbarReilly
Even Einstien believed in God; does that make relativity worthless?
Again this is utter silliness.
*ID, in the form it’s marketed in schools, is used as a faith based alternative to evolution. This makes it worth less (not worthless) as a science (because it relies on faith). There are also laws in the USA against mixing the affairs of church and government, so that’s the angle you take legally when trying to limit something like ID.
*A physicist is not an expert on all science, nor is anyone with a degree for that matter. I could get a doctorate in religious studies, but that wouldn’t make me a reliable expert on who Budda was, would it? (I mean as a spiritual being and able to explain his heavenly thoughts and emotions in a realistic way, distinct from what's writen in scripture or thought to be his historical background).
-edit- Perhaps a better analogy is this: Despite a doctorate in religious studies I wouldn't be any better an authority on weather angels really existed or not, than anyone else.

*Besides, in your usual way, you twisted my point and replaced it with something else. I said: “People who subscribe to evolution can be just as religious as anyone else.” And it’s true.
Your remark about Einstein was a joke, surely? What would make Relativity worthless would be if none of his theories surrounding it could ever be even slightly proved, and none the maths added up… Just plain science. But unlike ID, you can actually prove Einstein’s theories. At least that's what we're finiding out.

FinbarReilly
…newspapers and journals of the time…
What the hell? Before Darwin came and developed his ideas on the voyage of the Beagle, thinking regarding evolution WAS NOT WIDELY DEBATED. That is an out and out fabrication. Ideas surrounding the theory were so embryonic, as to be mere stemcells!
The real timeline here Finbar, starts with his jolly jaunt as a young fellow on the leaky old Beagle, where Darwin was NOT looking to prove ANY theories of any kind, ok? Much, much later, after years of diligent study, writing, research and a few more trips here and there (on the beagle too), when Darwin was a very old man, the ideas about evolution were then starting to be discussed. Darwin heard about a similar work being published and so he got in ahead and published “Origin of the Species” (or whatever it’s called) ahead of them to avoid losing credit for his LIFE’S WORK.

One of the main reasons he held back on the whole thing so long was because of the hostility of the church and accepted ideas about creation. He also never wanted to hurt the church through his publication…

…and here’s me, explaining… Ok, that means I’m officially a fool…

-edit- Besides, as I'm sure I've told you before, Darwin isn't that important in the whole equation. He may be the chief instigator and the poster child of evolution, but science has moved on a long way since his diligent work and early bumblings.

…and I'm still a fool…
-edit- disregard all this, it's just a great big rant by an idiot. :(
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
ozoneocean at 4:39PM, Jan. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,971
joined: 1-2-2004
You’ll forgive me if I don’t address a lot of that? We have different philosophies generally, some is addressed by others here and elsewhere in the debate forum, and other parts are too far of the topic at hand to pursue further.
Also, the point re: Einstein was that it seemed that you were supporting scientists, as long as they were non-Christian
Nope, never ever. Scientists can have whatever religion they like. My point was that those who subscribe to evolution consist of both religious and non religious people. Evolution is in no way synonymous with atheism. Which seemed to be your point. Initially.
My opinion is that for the few who support ID: either very strong religious conviction, lack of relevant education, or a combination of both is the factor.

Darwin quoted a number of people in his Origin of Species. Did he make those quotes up? …Look up “morphology”
Read my blithe ramblings carefully Fin. Darwin’s voyage on the Beagle was as a young man of 22, in the year 1831. The book wasn’t published till he was an older man of 50, in 1859. Almost 30 years after beginning his 4 year voyage on the Beagle.
Between the initial voyage (which had nothing to do with evolution) and the later publication, stretches a gulf of many years. These were taken up with research, study, and the evolution of evolution. :D

There is a fantastic website for reading about the life of Charles Darwin in a nice neat chronological order; here.

Read through there and you’ll see I’m pretty correct on the timeline and reasoning I used up there in my rant, even through to the reasons for that time of publication, (i.e. others were going to be publishing similar work).

Regarding ideas like “morphology” and people he quoted, I didn’t exclude that debate existed at all; I just said that it was at an embryonic, even “stemcell” stage. And it was. But of course no useful ideas exist in a vacuum, they like to grow naturally from various sources, mutating and mating with the fittest of other ideas. And when you write a scientific paper that’s going to be taken seriously, you damn well better quote all the relevant material you can find that even remotely supports your thesis!
In the years since the voyage a lot happened in this field: a debate on evolution had begun in earnest, science in various fields was progressing in leaps and bounds, etc.
-You can read about it at that marvellous website. I’m glad I found something like that to support my argument. But since I was right to start with, I knew it would be pretty easy.

Your idea though, was that Darwin started out wanting to prove ideas of evolution wrong, and so went on a voyage… Any reading on the man clearly proves that false. Unless you have access to alternate biographies?

-Oh, and I’m still an idiot.
And an even BIGGER moron because I just editied this again!
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
mykill at 5:18PM, Jan. 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
The problem with evolution, really, has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and everything to do with the politics of paradigm.

Not too long ago in America, truth was something you looked up in a book called “the Bible”. Sure, there are still people who operate this way. But when Darwin was alive almost EVERYONE did.

Right now America is in the midst of a culture war over paradigm.

Gay is evil because the Bible says so vs. psychological reality of people BEING gay, not choosing to be gay - and the fact Gay people can lead reasonably blameless lives.

Intelligent Design Vs. exclusionary teaching of evolution -because of those that KNOW intelligent design is THE TRUTH (says so in the book of true things, after all).

People are born into knowing things are true. Most of us are Democrats or Republicans because our parents were and that worldview is “the truth”. We know racism is wrong, but not because we thought about it - because it's “the truth”.

The fight is for the right to hold as true, those things that are believed to be true just because. It has nothing to do with facts or theories. No matter how either side may pretend.

Science champions the point of view of “knowing nothing” - and therefore is beholden to observation. This is completely antithetical to those with “Book of truth” that allows them to know things. Attack their truth, you attack their book.

It's called Jihad in other cultures.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
StaceyMontgomery at 8:01PM, June 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
ID is not science - and there's no honest way to say that it is. Sorry, thanks for playing.

ID is what Creationism evolves into in the natrural selection of public debate, as the basic premise of creationism is repackaged and rebranded for yet another try. It's an amazing coincidence that ID appears right after Creationism loses some big court cases!

If ID was science, it would be based on experiments. It would make predictions. It would be falsifiable - that is, it would make specific claims that can be disproven. It would also make specific claims about what was coming in the future.

ID might do all those things starting tomorrow - but that hasn't happened yet. When those things happen - if they do - I'll have to say “ID is science now.”

Science is not about “showing other perspectives on looking at things.” That's just silly. Science is about developing and testing an understanding of the world around us, based on the facts as we learn them. Dreaming up new perspectives is just daydreaming. It's fun - you should do it every day. But Science is a bit more rigorous. Daydreaming is fun - but science involves hard work.

Here, let's play a game. Say I've got a time machine. I go back in time and I get a Scientist from 50 years ago. An expert on evolution. I bring him forward to our time, and he sits down with modern scientists. They could tell him all about new findings in evolution. He'd like some of what they said - and he'd hate some of it too! He'd demand proof, and they'd show him. Some of the proof would convince him. Some of it he'd work hard to disprove. But the time traveler and the modern scientists would both be part of an active, dynamic process - and we'd be able to see the real progress that had been made in fleshing out the details of evolution's basic principle - That life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.

Now, let's try the same experiment for ID. We'll take a modern ID guy and travel 50 years in the future. We'll look around and find some ID folks who live in the future, and ask them to compare notes. What will they have to talk about? What experiments can the ID people have performed over the next 50 years to develop their theory? What new things can they have learned to flesh out the basic principle of ID - that Life results from the design of some higher intelligence. Presumably, our modern ID will mention holes or gaps he sees in evolutionary theory. And the future IDs will go, well, no, those have all been resolved, but we have some NEW holes or gaps to point out…

And on and on, because with any science, you can always stand on the sidelines and say “They dont know everything!” There's a lot we don't know about the structure of the atom, but we dont assume “that means something supernatural happens in the atom!”

This is the “black box problem.” We dont know everything, so you can always point to one of the mysterious bits - the “black boxes” of science, and say “that's the part where magic pixies intervene!”

Try it this way: Ancient cavemen heard thunder, and wondered what it was. “Must be the gods!” they figured. A fine guess. Eventually, we learned more, and it turned out they were wrong. Thunder is just weather. And since that day, whenever we have a mystery, there's been some yahoo saying “This is the place where magic pixies did it.” They said it about disease (angry spirits) and electricity (divine fury) and mountains (dragon bones) and everything else. magic. Spirits. Gods. But it always turned out to have some other explanation.

Now, I have to admit, this doesnt mean that NEXT time the magic pixie theory wont turn out to be true. We might discover some weird atomic particle next year, and the year after that find out that it's actually magic pixies. It could happen.

But so far, the “magic” guys have always been wrong. Maybe it's not a useful way to think about the Universe? The evidence is that if God created the Universe, or us, he went out of his way to do it with natural processes. So while you might find god in your heart, it seems less and less likely that you're going to find his signature in your DNA. Deal with it.

And until then - ask yourself this. What claim does ID so far make that can ever be tested or disproven?

Let me give an example of what I mean - When Darwin wrote Origin of Species (1859, I think) there were no pre-human fossil remains. So if none had ever been found, you'd be able to say the theory looks falsified.

Of course, we DID find those bones. BUt you see what I mean? You could think of a scientific discovery that would happen tomorrow that would PROVE that evolution had been wrong all along.

Now, try the opposite. What could we discover tomorrow that would PROVE that Life does not result from the design of some higher intelligence? I can't think of one. No matter how perfect modern biology becomes, you'll always be able to insert magic into the process somewhere, if you want to.

And no one can stop you. You might even be right. But it's not science. It's just an idea you have. And it's worth what we paid for it.


edited because my endless typos make me hard to follow, my apologies
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Evil_Snuffkin at 11:25AM, June 24, 2007
(online)
posts: 934
joined: 1-6-2006
I don't think its a case of ‘believing’ in evolution; you either accept the huge mass of evidence or ignore it and replace it with whatever else you'd rather believe (which rarely has any hard evidence at all).
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:24PM
vgman at 10:01PM, June 24, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,167
joined: 10-4-2006
well lets put it this way. i belive in evolotion but i also belive that every thing has a begining. so before the universe was created there was just god right? well i'll grant you that but let me ask you this what was BEFORE GOD. its impossible to simply alway's exist. there is always somthing before you. and that somthing before you generaly created you. we may be intelligent beings but for all we know where just an INCREDIBLY small mass of beings that are observed every day by some nerdy alean. as they may also be wached. really there is no first. saying god has always been is like saying where gona start at 0 on a number line and count up. there are no such things as negitive numbers. and to me thats just incredibly stupid.
RIP TD :cry2:
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:40PM
SteveMyers22 at 3:22PM, June 27, 2007
(online)
posts: 300
joined: 6-17-2007
and due to this, they lost credibility.

I think the ability of the catholic church to adapt … admit mistakes … and try to move on with the root of christian teachings instead of getting bogged down in minutae, semantics and nit picking, kind of boosts their credibility in my eyes.

They admitted the children's crusade was pretty heinous … that Gallileo was right … that Kepler was right … that Copernicus was right … that Joan of Arc wasn't a witch …

Being able to admit one's mistakes is a pretty good trait, imo.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:58PM
Sea_Cow at 7:29PM, June 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,687
joined: 4-5-2007
Okay now, we're only talking about evolutionism and Christianity/Judism here. Don't forget about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, and Satanism here.

As I try to stay neutral, my theory is this:
Some higher force created our genetic ancestors, and set the course of evolution so that we would pop up somehow. The higher force has lots of names, and is not necessarily one entity, just a higher power.
It has also sent messengers to us, in the forms of humans.

There. I think I covered them all.
I am so happy to finally be back home
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:24PM
Roseweave at 12:50PM, July 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 13
joined: 7-1-2007
It's rather sad that this topic even exists.

It's like asking “Do you believe in the Tectonic Plates”, which we have roughly the same amount of evidence for, and have never directly observed(fundies don't understand how science works, obviously, thus evolution and global warming denial).

Yet, is it acceptable for Christians to think that God causes earthquakes and volcanoes?

Unfortunately, some still do. But I'm trying to appeal to those who aren't lost causes.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
TnTComic at 12:57PM, July 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
SteveMyers22
and due to this, they lost credibility.

I think the ability of the catholic church to adapt … admit mistakes … and try to move on with the root of christian teachings instead of getting bogged down in minutae, semantics and nit picking, kind of boosts their credibility in my eyes.

They admitted the children's crusade was pretty heinous … that Gallileo was right … that Kepler was right … that Copernicus was right … that Joan of Arc wasn't a witch …

Being able to admit one's mistakes is a pretty good trait, imo.

Admitting what everybody knows doesn't do anything for credibility. Respect, maybe, but not credibility. Making the mistakes as they have can only have a negative impact on credibility. Its lose-lose, as should be expected whenever religion challenges science. Religion should (should!) simply leave science alone. Their argument always boils down to “nu-uh!” anyway, so why get into it at all.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 3:12PM, July 1, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
No.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Roseweave at 3:37PM, July 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 13
joined: 7-1-2007
Vindibudd
No.

You don't believe in Homosexuality(as it is scientifically defined) or Evolution? I smell a mega-fundie.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
Priest_Revan at 4:39PM, July 2, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,339
joined: 12-31-2006
I personally believe that God controlled evolution… so, in another words, no creationism (yeah, so the whole Adam and Eve thing doesn't work with me).

But, who knows, evolution might be wrong. We can't explain everything.
Updates Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday's (depends).

7/0

Offering Project Wonderful Ad space on my website.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:48PM
Ocka at 1:10AM, July 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 162
joined: 3-4-2007
I believe in evolution…and yet I believe in my Catholic beliefs..kinda… though maybe I'd be a heretic in my priest's eyes >.>..

I always see Adam and Eve being bacteria in goo (Eden ) and when they got booted out of the goo they actually evolved into something >.> The snake….I never think of him/it much. From there everything else occurs. yup..

last edited on July 14, 2011 2:20PM
DemonSaintDante at 7:07AM, July 5, 2007
(online)
posts: 108
joined: 6-25-2007
I dunno i have as much a problem believing that god is the omnipresent super powered being who has never had a beginning and will never have an end as much as Religious people have a problem believing in evolution and us coming from pools of goo.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:10PM
Roguehill at 8:40AM, July 5, 2007
(offline)
posts: 211
joined: 1-3-2007
I assume from the ill-fashioned original post that the question for this forum is do I accept the science of evolution? Sure I do. Adapting is what living things do best.

Now, do I use this theory to deny the existance of God? Of course not. The christian bible never mentions toothpaste either….

Look, the Christian is a book that documents the history and belief of a particular people. If that belief helps you understand your relationship with everything, so be it. If not, there are plenty of others. I would encourage you to explore your beliefs, however, as apparently nothing else goes with you when you die.


GHOST ZERO
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:09PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved