Cute Klux Klan / Religion - Evolution

[Evans]

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

Of course not, their believing makes them small minded.

j/k

Actualy, I'll take you for example, you read books about the creation of the Universe, exposing yourself to new theories that might solve some human-history long questions. Also, you do not discredit those ideas solely because you think a God made you what you are, nor do you say that these new ideas should be hidden from the public's eye simply for their novelty. That makes you an open minded person.

Here's a quote: "Humans are so narcissistic that they created a God in their image."

[Sprung]

This thread is a mess...I have altered the Title for prosperity, at best.

I do in fact read books on the Universe and it's past/future, and I do believe God created it, us, and everything. I find it interesting that just by observing the events in our Universe, so much can be deduced. The only thing that science cannot even delve into is the Creation. (Meaning the Big Bang) Not one book I have read has even attempted to describe the Primordial Atom, beyond the fact that it must have been infinitely dense, and infinitely small. The one great piece of evidence that could make or break religion and/or science is just out of our grasp. Intentionally.

[kohlrak]

Exaclty who does decide then what is morally correct or not? Popular vote, i'm sure we can all agree that if you took complete "animals" that we have proven to be and amke us all neutral we would never come to an agreement. (thus why we're arguing in the first place.)

Exactly how is it more scientific than religon?

May i repoint out that evolution is no more scientific than intellegent design. Science is one thing, saying where we came from is another. Science is about the now, history is about the past. Evolution is more of history (as with intellegent design) than it is with science.

My positive rep to sprung shows my opinion on this part of your responce.

now for this dude... You can read a book on evolution and your mind would be singled out to that also. Your mind would be inversly yet equally blocking out intellegent design. And this is true, both ways. Such has been psychologically proven.

[Mistral]

I would have posted this a couple hours ago, but my connection died suddenly for no apparent reason (or perhaps there is, and the forums really did spontaneously generate an auto-censor for my posts ). At any rate, it's mostly still relevant, but I've cropped out the bits that aren't anymore.

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.

The opening has been granted, and I thank you. Now that you have started giving particulars, I can start pointing out things in contrast.
Creationist claims
CC200: Lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record
CC201: Smooth continuum of evolutionary changes not found in fossil record
CB805: Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds.

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.

Yes, I suppose I did more specifically describe the theories of evolutionary and theistic creationism. I presume still that you mean the generic term intelligent design, rather than the particular strain of arguments stemming from Paley's arguments (which themselves were a fallacy of proof from incredulity, in which anything which is not understood is the work of a higher power...God creates lightning only until the principles of electrification and Coloumb forces are understood, God creates the planets only until coalescence in nebulae and protostars are understood, God makes the sun shine only until the principles of nuclear fusion and its ramifications are understood).

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.

Electromagnetism has no practical use to a janitor. Iambic pentameter is no use to a physicist. Quantum mechanics has no practical use whatsoever right now, whereas Bohr's models and classical physics served as a reasonable approximation for macroscopic activity. Who are you to determine what will and will not have practical use now, or in the future, in the place of every single person in the world? OK, sorry...such hubris is an easy way to upset me...

And are you saying all scientists who don't support evolution are radicals? I'd love to see such proof.

Ah, and now you are merely putting words in my mouth. I have not called them radicals. I merely stated that scientists who allow their own personal spiritual beliefs to taint their scientific research are foolish, and pointed out that a large quantity of these seem to be of creationist background. There are similar evolutionary scientists, but fortunately, such people tend to be rapidly denounced and marginalized.

Not beleiving in god is defined as Agnostic.

A nitpick: Atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of the divine. It's the same root as theism, or theo- in theology (the study of God) and theocracy (government of God, literally). Agnosticism is derived from the term gnosis, the intuitive or esoteric knowledge (which is also where the name for the Christian heresy Gnosticism came from; Gnosticism is also where it also developed a particular connotation with spiritual knowledge, or knowledge of God), and refers either to the belief that the divine is unknown and/or unknowable; basically, not intuitive. Agnosticism is basically the grey area between belief in existence and belief in nonexistence.

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.

I shall presume you refer to Intelligent Design. In that case, I suppose I shall reply with links again. After all, they sum up my position in less space here.
Creationist Claims
CI001: Intelligent Design is scientific
CI001.3: Intelligent Design is a mainstream scientific theory
CI009: Intelligent Design disproves evolutionary mechanisms
CA111: Many current scientists reject evolution
CA111.1: Over 300 scientists express skepticism of Darwin
CA112: Many scientists find problems with evolution.

Not related to the above directly, but related to science as religious dogma that you keep insisting upon:
CA320: Scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma.

Regarding evolution as atheistic or amoral:
CA602: Evolution is atheistic
CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview
CA009: Evolution teaches that we are animals and to behave as such.
Related to CA009: CA630: Evolution says humans are animals, but humans are moral, esthetic, idealistic, and religious, and animals are not.

Regarding cutting evolution out of biology class:
CA042: Evolution does not need to be taught in science classes.

Found it directly! Evolution and religion.
CA610: Evolution is a religion
CA612: Evolution requires as much faith as creationism

I think I linked a bit more than I intended to...

[Evans]

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

Evans:

1. It does make sence, just read it again.
I've read it over and over, it still makes no sense.
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.
And it's the same for many an ancient book. Now, are we to say that all that really happened as described? No.
3. Evolution is just as based on science as any other religon.
Does science prove the existence of God? If so, then show me. And if you intend to prove it using Thermodynamics, just know that these are constructed in manner that makes them mostly usable in accordance with Creationism. Were they made just for that purpose? Maybe so, at least, that's what I believe.
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.
So, the sole fact that the one midway fossil hasn't been found makes it so that Evolutionism might not be correct? It would also mean that the idea that God vacated the Universe upon creation, hence leaving no substancial evidence of his existence, make Christianity or whatever false.
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".
To believe is a comforting "action", faced to the unknown, most humans tend to search for a guiding light. I, for one, an not like that. I look for evidence, tangible one.
6. A much more rapid change than evolution supports, try again.
If archeologists and biologists are wrong in their assesment of the time it takes for a mutation to take "full effect", then it does certainly not mean that they are wrong. Jumping to facts is a pretty primitive way of approaching the situation. Answers cannot be found in a human's lifespan, be patient, take comfort in your belief. I live quite happily without answers. Questions have driven humanity since it's beginning. Religion holds answer, therefore easiness.
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.
Your point? We have to chose sides? Hum, ok. Tangible evidence at the moment will satisfy my hunger to find answers, as much as answer can be found for the moment. I just cannot accept that a God would create and leave us be, that our existence be merely a test, a game in which we pawns have to play the right moves. It's just an aberration.
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.
Hum, no you can't. That's a poor way of addressing my argument. Had you any knowledge of physics or at least lightwaves, you would already know how that works out. You would have to come up with a theory that would work in EVERY situation, which is why light is regarded as being both wave and particule. As for being practical, a theory about how green light affects other light waves could be, you'd just have to find a purpose for it. While I'm at it, what's the purpose of religion? Isn't just living in a society enough to instigate good behavior and isn't common sense enough to dictate, and that word is used deliberately, "morals" ?
9. Read my replies to your statements and i'm sure you'll find a few minor peices of evidence.
I wouldn't call that "contradicting evidence", but more of a questionnable point. I could say that violence is a proof that God doesn't exist, and never did, because, since he made us in his image, that would mean he has violence in him, hence not being perfect, making the whole religion thing one major hoax. But I won't, religion is comforting to people, but the problem is that it hinders today's living by leading people into making acts of attrocious violence.
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.
A fossil isn't an opinion. Similarities between the development of all foetus aren't opinions. You decide if facts aren't facts, but you're biased. I, on the other end, look at facts. I don't know how we came to be, and how we got to what we are like today, so I believe I'm more apt at making an estimate of what is good and what isn't, that is regarding Evolutionism. Now, facts are facts, the way you interpret them depends on your beliefs. I believe nothing. I just choose to live my own life, and am really glad I don't have to be answering to something bigger than myself other than society. Tangents, weeee!
11. I don't see anywhere in any deffition that you have to pray for somthing to be a religon.
Holy crap, don't be so dense. Stop trying to prove us wrong on such a trifle. One last time, there are religions with Gods and religions in which you're DEVOTED to something. Now, Evolutionism attracts all kind of folks, but it doesn't make it a religion as you seem to be hell-bent on proving. So, Evolutionism isn't a religion as such, just a gathering of evidence that tend to prove we evolved, not that God doesn't exist, that's another debate. Clearer now?
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.[/QUOTE]

Alright, I don't mind debating this, but you'll have to quote at least a part of the text if you want me to keep at it. It's just annoying to have to go back to the other post. Well, actually, I'm most tired of trying to express my point of view to people who believe hold answers to life's questions. Have a nice one. See ya.

[Evans]

This thread is a mess...I have altered the Title for prosperity, at best.

I do in fact read books on the Universe and it's past/future, and I do believe God created it, us, and everything. I find it interesting that just by observing the events in our Universe, so much can be deduced. The only thing that science cannot even delve into is the Creation. (Meaning the Big Bang) Not one book I have read has even attempted to describe the Primordial Atom, beyond the fact that it must have been infinitely dense, and infinitely small. The one great piece of evidence that could make or break religion and/or science is just out of our grasp. Intentionally.

Time put it out of our grasp, nothing else. It's not for the mere fact that I can't tell you how it all began that I'll admit the existence or influence of God. Never.

And what do you mean by "intentionally" ? God made it so that we'd come to believe he exists, or scientists are not mentionning it because they know that if they do admit they can't tell you the hows and whats, that the whole God thing would attract more people?

[Anonymous]

damn elmina, link much?

well i leave this topic a few hours to play FF8, and look what happened...Kohlrak made a fool out of himself again, and sprung and elmina and Evans move higher on my "kewl list".

I actually feel sorry for you, kohlrak. you seem to be a lost little boy, unable to decide what he really wants to think, so he throws out severely opinionated statements, with no facts to back them up, in an attempt to hear more opinions from others, with actual basis, to try to figure out what it is he really believes in.

so sad...

[Mistral]

Oh, thanks for reposting that. I missed this the first time, and irreducible complexity really bothers me, for reasons that shall go unmentioned as some would construe them to be insulting.

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.

CB200: Some systems are irreducibly complex.
CB300: Complex organs and biological functions could not have evolved
CB301: The eye could not have evolved
CB340: Organs and organ systems (i.e. lungs) would have been useless until all parts were in place

Other examples you didn't mention, but alluded to:
CB200.1: Bacterial flagella
CB302: The ear
CB303: The brain
CB310: The bombardier beetle
CB325: The giraffe's neck
CB326: The woodpecker's tongue
CB341: Certain snakes' hollow fang and venom glands
For biological systems frequently used as examples:
CB200.2: Blood clotting
CB200.3: Protein Transport
CB200.4: The human immune system
CB200.5: The AMP synthesis metabolic pathways
CB311: The metamorphosis of a butterfly from a caterpillar

EDIT:

damn elmina, link much?

Too much. If I wanted to, I could just do something like linking the original outline source for all of those links, but where's the fun in that?

[Xaenn]

May i repoint out that evolution is no more scientific than intellegent design.

I don't think you know what science is...

In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

You can't test or falsify intelligent design, therefore it is not a scientific theory. End of discussion. There is not any room for debating this. Intelligent Design is not scientific, fact.

[Sprung]

Time put it out of our grasp, nothing else. It's not for the mere fact that I can't tell you how it all began that I'll admit the existence or influence of God. Never.

It's not time that is stopping us. We can backtrack all the way back until milliseconds after the Big Bang. But that as far as we can go. Our own logic and the laws of our physics break down when matter becomes infinite. Time becomes meaningless, and "space" as we know it ceases to exist. We have no means to model the event of creation, with computers or our own imagination.

And what do you mean by "intentionally" ? God made it so that we'd come to believe he exists, or scientists are not mentionning it because they know that if they do admit they can't tell you the hows and whats, that the whole God thing would attract more people?

Eh. I admit that was a tongue-in-cheek shot at the way things are. God didn't tell us the "how" only the "is". Some scientists are already admitting the fact that without some "outside" intervention by "something", the Big Bang possibly would have never occured. Obviously speculation, but interesting.

You have to admit though, that the fact that we can go back so far, but just not that last, tiny step, is intriguing, don't you think?

[kohlrak]

I see then that the theory is slightly different than as stated. Based on this section of the reply, i stand corrected on this segment.

There is nowhere that it's stated that god dosn't use any of these to make things happen the way they do.

Fact is, evolution has no practical use to anyone. Unlike electromagnatism and the others.

As you vaguely said, it goes both ways. And i agree that this must be corrected.

Co deffinition should have been a better term. I apologize.

CI001: There is also nothing scientific about chance either.
CI009: In cases like this, there is a right and there is a wrong. There can't be 2 rights in this case.
CA111: There is evidence against evolution. Read up a little.
CA111.1: This has always been a problem for both sides.
CA112: Lacks information and contradiction that has been stated. Such as the eye case. This is not specific.
CA320: This goes both ways. But it's unstated. Athiests would also fear they are wrong. For if they are wrong and find somthing saying they are wrong, then they have to answer for it.
Basically what i got from CA602 was no support for their claims and what they did say was equal to CA320 only in different words.
CA001: I won't even click that one. The title speaks for itself. Saying it is immoral is an exaduration, it mearly does not form morals for us to fallow.
CA009: That also is an exaduration, i am already staying up longer than i should, i don't need to read that to say that is an exaduration of what some of us say but i will admit we have our radicals.
CA630: I don't know what creationists are thinking there. Clearly says in the bible that without god we have no base for government or morals. Which, in effect is true.
CA042: Any concept within evolution could be separated into it's own catagory. Not everything that evolution states is contradicted in the bible. Which is a common misconception by athiests.
CA610: "Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless. " I like that. Actually, one could call stamp collecting a religon, it may not contradict other religons, but actually the 10 commandments state against being that obcessed. Why? Because getting too obcessed with stamp collecting is makign a god out of the stamps. If you're curious which commandment, look at number one. "Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause. " And the nice good old government is misinterpreting what has been written in the past. That's why we have htis debate, it's over weather religon should be in schools or not, correct? Obviously if i'm right, the government made a mistake which wouldn't be teh first time. Just because the government dosn't feel it's violated a law does not mean it has not violated a law. It's like some one speading, cop sees and does nothing, dosn't mean he wasn't speeding.
CA612: "The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. " That's saying intellegent design has no ground to stand on. I beg to differ. Unlike evolution, we have an answer to where our creator came from. Evolution has no form of ideas of where the ball started rolling. I don't have enough time tonight to type up the whole lengthy explimation of where god game from, but if you so ask i will post it when i do have enough time. May i point out it is a bit hard to comprehend and you will need an open mind to comprehend it.

[Mistral]

You have to admit though, that the fact that we can go back so far, but just not that last, tiny step, is intriguing, don't you think?

Not really. Consider that for so long, we couldn't even have gotten that far. Similarly, early exploration into wave-particle physics also ran into similar problems where the approximations used broke down (the ultraviolet catastrophe is the most famous, where a particular approximation for energy of a light wavelength approached infinity as one left visible light for ultraviolet) We'll someday discover the truth of the Big Bang, probably around the time we discover the Theory of Everything/Grand Unified Theory (that's my own tongue-in-cheek).

EDIT: I'll reply to you in a new post kohlrak, since someone is sure to get in between this and by the time I finish.

[Anonymous]

the ambiguity of that first nanosecond is what convinced me to believe, at least partially, in Deism.

There is no way, in my mind, that an "explosion" of any sorts could create the perfect (in terms of sustaining life) world that we live on, along with the 8 (9, maybe) other planets that revolve around our sun.

That leads me to believe that God created the whole thing, got the ball rolling, you might say, then stepped back, almost to say "Let's see what happens."

Maybe he created humans, maybe not. I don't think so. I think, if we could actually view our God, he would look nothing like we think. maybe he has no shape. who knows. someone said earlier, "Humans are so narcissistic that we created a God in our image." i don't think it happened the other way around. i do believe that we came from monkeys (a huge leap, i know, deal with it for now until i care to elaborate on it), and that we decided, when it came time for religion, that God HAS to look like us.

</my $0.02>

[Evans]

Sprung

It's not time that is stopping us. We can backtrack all the way back until milliseconds after the Big Bang. But that as far as we can go. Our own logic and the laws of our physics break down when matter becomes infinite. Time becomes meaningless, and "space" as we know it ceases to exist. We have no means to model the event of creation, with computers or our own imagination.

Hum, yet. And no one ever said that physics were perfect. Heck no. We can only rely on them for what we have "seen" or thought of.

Eh. I admit that was a tongue-in-cheek shot at the way things are. God didn't tell us the "how" only the "is". Some scientists are already admitting the fact that without some "outside" intervention by "something", the Big Bang possibly would have never occured. Obviously speculation, but interesting.

You say that as if it were a fact...

You have to admit though, that the fact that we can go back so far, but just not that last, tiny step, is intriguing, don't you think?

Thanks, I was waiting for that one.
If the Big Bang isn't explained or explainable, then might it not have ever taken place?

[Sprung]

Not really. Consider that for so long, we couldn't even have gotten that far. Similarly, early exploration into wave-particle physics also ran into similar problems where the approximations used broke down (the ultraviolet catastrophe is the most famous, where a particular approximation for energy of a light wavelength approached infinity as one left visible light for ultraviolet) We'll someday discover the truth of the Big Bang, probably around the time we discover the Theory of Everything/Grand Unified Theory (that's my own tongue-in-cheek).

EDIT: I'll reply to you in a new post kohlrak, since someone is sure to get in between this and by the time I finish.

I have absolutely no knowledge of wave-particle physics. I really can't draw a comparison on that point, and it is my own fault.