Cute Klux Klan / Religion - Evolution

[Anonymous]

Fear = phobia.

wrong. fear is rational. phobias are not. granted, phobias are a TYPE of fear, but don't lump all fear into the category of phobia.

[Paladin_Hammer]

Call me weird but i like Rammstein for some unknown reson... perhaps it's the guitar

WOOHOO!! someone else likes Rammstein!!!

[kohlrak]

KON... Astronomy..? Bull crap, i have seen some non evolution based astronomy... Psychology does not depend on evolution either nor mathematics or history... bull. Actually, some cases of history depends on the bible. And enough with the damn scientific stuff. You know damn well that evolution isn't based on science. Science has actually came up with many many holes in evolution. Biology specifically. And not all scientists support evolution. Don't you dare say scientists support don't like the "backwords crap" that a good number of them beleive.

As for you elmina... Fossils show species, but not individual development. Evolution depends on slow development over long periods of time. I'm afraid (sarcasm) to say that fossils do not show that slow change of pace. Actually there is a difference, in the intellegent design theory, it states that it's possible that a creator came up with many many species of different capabilities and did not evolve. As for saying it's like removing gravity. Actually, it's not. We have alot of proof for gravity and no theory that contradicts. I think our friend gravity is safe for the moment. And at least gravity isn't a religon. As for the school removing somthing cause it's obsolete. You ever consider that evolution has no practical use other than an idea where we came from? Unlike biology, history (which teaches what we can do to not make the same mistake again), math, and alot of good old stuff you take for granted have a practical use. But of all of the unpractical things, (including gym, i have yet to learn anything in gym) i find evolution the most supported and the most stupid thing to force on some one. It's a religon, a beleif with contradicting evidence. I think it's safe to say they should remove it until they have cold hard proof enough to declare it as true as some one who commits murder. Which means it must disprove all evidence against it. And are you saying all scientists who don't support evolution are radicals? I'd love to see such proof.

re�li�gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Like i said. 4 fits, and the fact that 3 defines somthing else dosn't mean since it dosn't fit 3 dosn't mean 4 becomes null. Therefore, i already have proven it's a religon, and i am tired of having to point this out already. Now if this is too hard for you to comprehend, get some one who can translate so your head does not spin. If you're going to ignor what i have to say then don't pose an argument cause for all you'd know (considering you basically said you are having trouble understanding) i could have already disproved what you are putting out. Such as you declaratioin that evolution is not a religon. It is indeed a religon. It fits deffinitioin 4. It is fallowed with zeal and it is a principle for sure and obviously you're concious and you're devoted to it.

Now with that said i'm sure i'll have an earfull ready for when i come home from school tomarrow.

[Xaenn]

wrong. fear is rational. phobias are not. granted, phobias are a TYPE of fear, but don't lump all fear into the category of phobia.

Hmm, let me get this straight. Fear is rational...phobias are fears...phobias are rational? I think you should reconsider your premises. Fear most certainly need not be rational.

Guys, if you really want to debate evolution, give it it's own proper topic. Or better yet, read the topics already made on it. You can save yourself repeating what others have already said.

The only reason you say evolution has anything to do with religion is because you are afraid it falsifies your creation "myths." Just like the Sun not revolving around the Earth...

[kohlrak]

Xaenn, i don't exactly call anywhere in any of the religons i have looked into about the sun revolving around the earth. And actually, to say we came from amebas contradicts our beleifs that we were created by a creator to look like what we look like now. We can't come from both at the same time.

[Xaenn]

Xaenn, i don't exactly call anywhere in any of the religons i have looked into about the sun revolving around the earth. And actually, to say we came from amebas contradicts our beleifs that we were created by a creator to look like what we look like now. We can't come from both at the same time.

Yes but it was considered blasphemy when discovered. We couldn't possibly not be the center of the universe.

Evolution doesn't even necessarily contradict creation stories, sure, if you want to go for a literal 7 days or whatever then it does, BUT, that's not really the main point. You can always say your creator put those original sparks into motion. Whatever fits your ideas.

My point was that evolution is not a religious theory in any respects. That's why you shouldn't try and make it out as one. There are some who look at it as "a counter to religions" but that's just dumb. Take it for what it is, no more, no less.

[kohlrak]

Xaenn, do i really have to repeat myself 3 or 4 times to point out indeed it is a religon? And it does contradict. It's ment to be taken as literally as translation provides (considering it wasn't even written in english originally). There's a difference between evolution and earth centered model. There is not only contradicting evidence, but evolution also is contradicted by those religons. Exactly how un literal do we have to take the bible for it to be true? It's one thing to not take it literal cause of translation issues, but to not take it literal so a theory can be supported by it?

EDIT SO IT'S APPARENT AGAIN:

Quote:
re�li�gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.




Like i said. 4 fits, and the fact that 3 defines somthing else dosn't mean since it dosn't fit 3 dosn't mean 4 becomes null. Therefore, i already have proven it's a religon, and i am tired of having to point this out already. Now if this is too hard for you to comprehend, get some one who can translate so your head does not spin. If you're going to ignor what i have to say then don't pose an argument cause for all you'd know (considering you basically said you are having trouble understanding) i could have already disproved what you are putting out. Such as you declaratioin that evolution is not a religon. It is indeed a religon. It fits deffinitioin 4. It is fallowed with zeal and it is a principle for sure and obviously you're concious and you're devoted to it.

Now with that said i'm sure i'll have an earfull ready for when i come home from school tomarrow.

[Xaenn]

Xaenn, do i really have to repeat myself 3 or 4 times to point out indeed it is a religon? And it does contradict. It's ment to be taken as literally as translation provides (considering it wasn't even written in english originally). There's a difference between evolution and earth centered model. There is not only contradicting evidence, but evolution also is contradicted by those religons. Exactly how un literal do we have to take the bible for it to be true? It's one thing to not take it literal cause of translation issues, but to not take it literal so a theory can be supported by it?

EDIT SO IT'S APPARENT AGAIN:

A lot of Christians believe that you shouldn't interpret the bible literally.

Using your forth definition is clearly a stretch, but even at that, it's NOT using religion in the same regards one is towards a religion such as Christianity, so it's completely irrelevant. I don't zealously follow evolution nor am I devoted to it. It is merely the best supported theory we have.

[kohlrak]

There's a difference between not literally and going too far. I myself am Christian.

Saying because you don't follow it with zeal means it isn't religon is like saying cause half the christians don't even pray at least once a week that christianity isnt' a religon. Now it being the best supported theory we have is an opinion of yours. May it be noted that it is. May i also point out you'd be the first athiest i ever known to not be rather radical about it. Though not directly linked, a perfect example would be abortion. (As i have said, it isn't directly linked but it is a perfect example of radicals.) Kids are now being given rights to have abortions without parents knowing and such. I know alot of athiests are against it, but anyone who truely beleives in any bible based religon (apposed to koran or budists or such, i don't know their stance on the issue) would admit it is wrong. It's rather hard to find a radical situation that all athiests agree on (because it's rather null when it comes to values or morals) but that and removing it from school are 2 good examples. You see it radical to remove it from school, i see it just as radical to remove all but it from school. I know there are athiests out there that don't mind removing it from schools but from what i've seen the migority say it should stay in. When it really wouldn't harm anything taking it out (just like taking out any other religon) so i don't see how it'd be radical to take it out since the others are gone from public schools. It is supported by the government to teach evolution but no other religon. Therefor the first amendment is being violated. Now if you don't call that fallowing with zeal or devotion, i'd like to know how far it must go before you do consider it that. It is forced on us (and i do mean forced, because not everyone can go to a private school) therefore some one has to be serious about it. And coincidentally it's a mass number of people. Therefor, there is a mass number devoted to it.

[Xaenn]

There's a difference between not literally and going too far. I myself am Christian.

And who decides where to draw that line?

Saying because you don't follow it with zeal means it isn't religon is like saying cause half the christians don't even pray at least once a week that christianity isnt' a religon.

Only based on the fourth definition of yours. But clearly that's not the definition we were using for Christianity. And the Christians that aren't praying, I suppose that would depend on the importance you place on prayer. If you put a lot, the most you could say is those people aren't practicing Christians.

Though not directly linked, a perfect example would be abortion. (As i have said, it isn't directly linked but it is a perfect example of radicals.) Kids are now being given rights to have abortions without parents knowing and such. I know alot of athiests are against it, but anyone who truely beleives in any bible based religon (apposed to koran or budists or such, i don't know their stance on the issue) would admit it is wrong.

You have to draw a line between what is morally wrong and legally unacceptable. Personally I stand against abortion in most cases, but that's irrelevant.

It's rather hard to find a radical situation that all athiests agree on (because it's rather null when it comes to values or morals) but that and removing it from school are 2 good examples. You see it radical to remove it from school, i see it just as radical to remove all but it from school. I know there are athiests out there that don't mind removing it from schools but from what i've seen the migority say it should stay in. When it really wouldn't harm anything taking it out (just like taking out any other religon) so i don't see how it'd be radical to take it out since the others are gone from public schools. It is supported by the government to teach evolution but no other religon. Therefor the first amendment is being violated. Now if you don't call that fallowing with zeal or devotion, i'd like to know how far it must go before you do consider it that.

It's because not believing in a God isn't a religion. There's no guiding light other than reason. The reason it is not ok to remove evolution from schools is because it is a scientific theory, the best supported by scientific evidence. It is relevant to science, which is being taught in schools. Not religion. Even if you claimed it to be religion under your last definition, that definition is not the relevant one.

If parents have a problem with evolution being taught, they can spend plenty of time with their children talking about their religion. In the end everyone will have to decide for themselves anyway. They can even homeschool them if they like. Hell, if they can make their children believe in nazism through homeschool, what can't they make them believe?

[Evans]

KON... Astronomy..? Bull crap, i have seen some non evolution based astronomy...

That makes no sense.

Actually, some cases of history depends on the bible.

If it is so, do tell me why the Odyssey or the Republica shouldn't be considered historical data.

And enough with the damn scientific stuff. You know damn well that evolution isn't based on science.

Yes it is.

Science has actually came up with many many holes in evolution. Biology specifically. And not all scientists support evolution.

Biology? Do take the time to explain yourself.

Don't you dare say scientists support don't like the "backwords crap" that a good number of them beleive.

What?

As for you elmina... Fossils show species, but not individual development. Evolution depends on slow development over long periods of time. I'm afraid (sarcasm) to say that fossils do not show that slow change of pace.

Yes they do. Read a book.

Actually there is a difference, in the intellegent design theory, it states that it's possible that a creator came up with many many species of different capabilities and did not evolve.

So saying that they are perfect. Ridiculous, they would have to be at the top of the food chain. Then again, you'll say that the grand design of things wants it so. I believe this just is absurd. Can't actually debate when a mind is clouded by religious belief rather than by a desire to know. Religion is just the easy way out for the small minded people, unwilling to make choices for themselves, better yet, strong-armed into acting a predetermined role. Off on tangents, weeeee.

As for saying it's like removing gravity. Actually, it's not. We have alot of proof for gravity and no theory that contradicts. I think our friend gravity is safe for the moment. And at least gravity isn't a religon.

I could actualy come up with another theory explaining why you're staying on the ground. Same "proof", different theory. Evolutionism can't be removed so easily as it takes root in other fields like archeology, biology and a bit in history. Oh, it's also based on facts.

As for the school removing somthing cause it's obsolete. You ever consider that evolution has no practical use other than an idea where we came from?

Just like most deistic religions you mean? Is scientifical enlightenment so obsolete nowadays? Wow. A sad world indeed.

Unlike biology (...) i find evolution the most supported and the most stupid thing to force on some one. It's a religon, a beleif with contradicting evidence.

No, it's not a religion, get your definitions right, or a belief for that matter, it's based on facts. Care to portray that so-called "evidence" ?

I think it's safe to say they should remove it until they have cold hard proof enough to declare it as true as some one who commits murder. Which means it must disprove all evidence against it. And are you saying all scientists who don't support evolution are radicals? I'd love to see such proof.

Then, the same should be done about everything else, don't you think? No more astrophysics, relativity and such subjects.
Heck, that could even be extended to philosophy, you can't say it's right if someone else disagrees. THAT... makes no friggin sense.

Like i said. 4 fits, and the fact that 3 defines somthing else dosn't mean since it dosn't fit 3 dosn't mean 4 becomes null. Therefore, i already have proven it's a religon, and i am tired of having to point this out already.

Ahem, you don't seem to understand the point at all. Not a religion as the religion you pray in. Rock n' roll is a religion to some. Get it? But if you wish to argue about vocabulary, errr... just don't. You're in no position.

Now if this is too hard for you to comprehend, get some one who can translate so your head does not spin. If you're going to ignor what i have to say then don't pose an argument cause for all you'd know (considering you basically said you are having trouble understanding) i could have already disproved what you are putting out. Such as you declaratioin that evolution is not a religon. It is indeed a religon. It fits deffinitioin 4. It is fallowed with zeal and it is a principle for sure and obviously you're concious and you're devoted to it.

Read the above statement.

Now with that said i'm sure i'll have an earfull ready for when i come home from school tomarrow.

Well, maybe two.

[kohlrak]

It is in our own opinion, and i'm pointing out it is not yours.

Well i could say the same about people who don't go hog wild about evolution too.

Evolution teachers no morals, it supports the possibility of no god, with no god we have no reson to have morals, correct? Like i said, evolution isn't a perfect example, but it is a nice one.

There's a difference between evolution and not beleiving in god. Not beleiving in god is defined as Agnostic. Much different from evolution, but not too far. There is science supporting creation also, it's the same science against evolution. To say any theory is more scientific than another is in streatching in itself. You can't say there isn't any science in an intellegent being watching over us. There is a bit to it if you sit and think about it. There is alot we can learn about taking science in a perspective that perhaps the rules of physics didn't make themselves. And to say the deffinition is not relevant, are you saying that the deffinition is void and null? Under what grounds, it counts as an official deffition from what i gather, why say it's not for this specific case, or am i misunderstanding you on the grounds of it being irrelevant.

Not all parents even have the option to homeschool. Bottom line, the public school (the one supported fully by the government) is biased. Obviously. It teaches one religon (or theory if you so please) over another one which currently has just as much evidence proving true and contradicting as the other. (ok, it's not exactly equal evidence, but no one has actually taken the time to gather up all the evidence, till now i guess. From what i hear there is actually a debate about this going on right now on which is true and which is false, i thought the debate was over but apparently it's still going on... Who knows how long it'll be till it ends. Only then will we have the nice collection.) My problem is, 2 (considered to be) equal theories are out there that do contradict to a point. It's biased cause one is being taught over the other without regard for the fact that they are considered equal at this point. (You may feel different that evolution has more proof, i feel the opisite, but it is an opinion and there is no exact "score" for which either has more than the other. Therefor it is to be neutral, but for some reson the government is not.)

[Sprung]

Religion is just the easy way out for the small minded people, unwilling to make choices for themselves, better yet, strong-armed into acting a predetermined role.

C'mon. You not believing does not make those who do small minded people.

[kohlrak]

I know this is double posting but i can't really do this otherwise.

Evans:

1. It does make sence, just read it again.

2. Just about all the stuff we know about the hebrew nomadic civilization not to mention the fact that egyption records also support certain small events in the bible.

3. Evolution is just as based on science as any other religon.

4. I hope you are aware that evolution takes place over thousands of years and each change occures slowly one at a time. Let's take the fish example. It's lungs change, now it'd have to make a nice big change to go the whole way from water breathing to gas breathing. That is one of many examples. The human eye is another one but i don't know the details on that one.

5. I'm mearly mocking the person who said basically "all scientists do not beleive in 'backwords crap' that is taught in church." May i point out that there are many scientists who beleive that "backwords crap".

6. A much more rapid change than evolution supports, try again.

7. Supporting any one thing is an easy way out. Same with evolution, i find it easier to say we all came from nothing than to look into a large amount of religons to find out exactly which one is true. I find it also funny how one can be fully into evolution and still argue also. Fact is, only an agnostic person can really make an unbiased argument, but if an argument is unbiased, there is no argument.

8. I could also englighten some one with a new concept of how green lights have an effect on other lights. Does it hold a practical purpose in life? No. Do we teach it? No. I think we can throw evolution in the same catagory, only there is a little involvement and debate with evolution, they are both just as practical.

9. Read my replies to your statements and i'm sure you'll find a few minor peices of evidence.

10. At this point with the current amount of evidence, it's like debating weather water is hot or cold, we only have our opinions and minor evidence to prove our point. Right now, basically, weather evolution should be considered true or not is an opinion, therefor until it is a fact (because then weather or not it's true will not be an opinion with contradiction, cause you can't contradict a proven fact) it should be removed. It's like teaching weather a certain temp is hot or cold. It's an opinion.

11. I don't see anywhere in any deffition that you have to pray for somthing to be a religon.

12. Now read my above statement. =3

13. I hope i can keep up, i feel as if i'm the lone ranger on this one. pardon me if this lone ranger falls behind in the debate.

[Xaenn]

Evolution teachers no morals, it supports the possibility of no god, with no god we have no reson to have morals, correct? Like i said, evolution isn't a perfect example, but it is a nice one.

Of course scientific theories are morally neutral...It's not a school's job to teach morals anyway. And most certainly not without a God do we not have morals. If there is nothing inherent about morality, how can one possibly hope to randomly fall upon the correct religion? Gut feeling? Saying all morals are derived from a God is a dangerous path to follow. It's completely a different thing to state that God says what is moral, as opposed to things are moral because God states them.

To say any theory is more scientific than another is in streatching in itself. You can't say there isn't any science in an intellegent being watching over us.

It's not falsifiable, therefore it's not scientific...If you want to argue whether or not it is logical that is an entirely different issue. But clearly it is NOT scientific.

And to say the deffinition is not relevant, are you saying that the deffinition is void and null? Under what grounds, it counts as an official deffition from what i gather, why say it's not for this specific case, or am i misunderstanding you on the grounds of it being irrelevant.

It's because one word can have multiple meanings. In this case we're not talking about that meaning of a religion. We're not talking about religion in the way the Dingy does.

If it was religion class, teaching intelligent design is just fine. But it is science. Intelligent design is not science. I believe that is the stance most anyone against it would take.

'mon. You not believing does not make those who do small minded people.

Seconded. I can't stress how true it is ever. One's religion does not really correlate with one's intelligence, or many other characteristics of one. It is just that, his or her religion.