Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...2627282930
ben-ja-men
ben-ja-men

just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide
Member Since: 12th Jun 2003
Total posts: 2474
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored this is.

*deep cleansing breath*

ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?

Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers

i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes? confused
/end vent


Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

Delete Topic

coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:i don't have the book and haven't read it - i have read lots of excerpts and reviews and decided against getting it in the end.



it definitely seems to be the closest published text to this discussion here though.





i.d. is not a scientific theory imo - with no basis for and absolutely no sign of peer review, coupled with the fact that it meets very few of the criteria required of a sound scientific theory, it remains to be just a group of cleverly worded faith-based ideas touted by religious powermongers worried about the future of the church.



the discovery institute's 'teach the controversy' campaign and its core (the wedge strategy), were quite clearly 'intelligently designed' to present religious belief as an equally valid alternative to rational free thinking and was hoped to challenge the materialistic world view that has grown out of the scientific leaps of the past few centuries.



the nature of the i.d. 'theory' however requires a new definition of science to be accepted if it is ever to stand side-by-side with (or against) evolution and as such, comparing the two seems to ultimately lead back to an argument of what science is.



it is not an attempt to reconcile science with religion and never will be - in fact it directly challenges scientific thinking to the point of declaring that the axioms of scientific theory do not need to apply to it (i.e. it does not need to be consistent, parsimonious, economical, pertinent, falsifiable/testable, reproducible, correctable and so on).



it began as a propaganda exercise (that being "bring into question the scientific community's opinion on the validity of the theory of evolution") and in my eyes, only continues to be such.





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Cole, I agree, as does the US legal system.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.
br>
Or

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Chelly
Chelly

Niraffe
Location: Up north
Member Since: 17th Mar 2006
Total posts: 884
Posted: Written by: coleman




i.d. is not a scientific theory imo - with no basis for and absolutely no sign of peer review, coupled with the fact that it meets very few of the criteria required of a sound scientific theory, it remains to be just a group of cleverly worded faith-based ideas touted by religious powermongers worried about the future of the church.

the discovery institute's 'teach the controversy' campaign and its core (the wedge strategy), were quite clearly 'intelligently designed' to present religious belief as an equally valid alternative to rational free thinking and was hoped to challenge the materialistic world view that has grown out of the scientific leaps of the past few centuries.

the nature of the i.d. 'theory' however requires a new definition of science to be accepted if it is ever to stand side-by-side with (or against) evolution and as such, comparing the two seems to ultimately lead back to an argument of what science is.

it is not an attempt to reconcile science with religion and never will be - in fact it directly challenges scientific thinking to the point of declaring that the axioms of scientific theory do not need to apply to it (i.e. it does not need to be consistent, parsimonious, economical, pertinent, falsifiable/testable, reproducible, correctable and so on).





Did you see the programme that was on channel 4 a couple of months back called "Gods next army"? Scary stuff. University kids being trained in politics, mainly all home educated from EXTREMELY religious families. One kid was talking about how homosexuality, blacks (in his words) and Muslims were all sinners, and how when his generation got into the whitehouse they would continue to stamp out these evils until the "free" world was clear of such dangers to humanity.

This particular university only taught creationism as a science. They believe the theory of evolution is an evil which threatens the (again this word) "free" world.

wow. eek And these are a lot of the kids doing internships in the whitehouse. Scary stuff.


"Lots of beeping. And shaking and tinfoil." Chelly

"Are you sure it's a genuine test and not a robot heroin addict?" Cantus

---set free by the rather lovely FireTom---
--(right arm owned by Fyre)--

Delete

coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted:eek thanks chellybean.



http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/godsarmy.html
br>
i hadn't seen that show but i did look up the college you mentioned...



patrick henry college, virginia: http://www.phc.edu/
br>


its a little scary how the education there orbits around such a fundamentalist christian theology and seems to be almost entirely focused on producing ready-made, power-hungry, fervently christian, conservative politicians.



put that next to the fact that they have their very own bible-sourced definition of government and how it should operate ("God himself has ordained government and commands that everyone must submit to government; moreover, there is no authority except that which God has established. (Romans 13: 1-5)") and it starts to look very questionable...



i also noticed that there are no photos of any black students.

in fact there are no pictures of any black people at all on the site.

none of the students, none of the teaching faculty, none of the board and none of the admin/support staff.





sorry if this is a touch off topic.



i'll leave you all with the wholly ridiculous phc directive on what their students are instructed to think in terms of human origin:



 Written by: phc website



PHC in particular expects its biology faculty to provide a full exposition of the claims of the theory of Darwinian evolution, intelligent design and other major theories while, in the end, teach creation as both biblically true and as the best fit to observed data.





i.e. you may (and are expected to) learn about and understand scientific theories, so long as you always return to the conclusion that any theory that contradicts the bible must be inherently wrong umm



i.d. 'rationality 'taken to the nth degree... ubbcrying





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Loewan
Loewan

and behold!
Location: Liverpool
Member Since: 11th Aug 2005
Total posts: 464
Posted:They even have a full size cut out of GW Bush!!!!




Why let your body be a temple? When it can be a theme park?

Wii Console Number: 3294 0297 7824 7498

Delete

UCOF
UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel

Member Since: 17th Apr 2002
Total posts: 15414
Posted:I'd like to post Rick Gervais' clip from his show called "Animals"

The book of Creation

ubblol


Delete

robnunchucks
robnunchucks

enthusiast
Location: manchester uk
Member Since: 14th Jul 2004
Total posts: 363
Posted:My fave webpage when it comes to stuff like this is Parable of Hank

always gives me a little chuckle biggrin


My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Glad to live in a country that does it right

At least in Quebec they do.


Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:The plot thickens, and now we have a date on which the world was created?

Any predictions on how sales of this book will go?


Delete

mcp
mcp

Flying Water Muppet
Location: Edin-borrow.
Member Since: 20th May 2003
Total posts: 5276
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link


YEAH! NO LIBERALS!


"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade

I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.

Delete

Mynci
Mynci

Macaque of all trades
Location: wombling free...
Member Since: 27th Apr 2005
Total posts: 8737
Posted:I love that this thread keeps popping up biggrin

I was watching Univestity challenge this week and one of the questions was On Paley and his Watchmaker


A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.

Delete

robnunchucks
robnunchucks

enthusiast
Location: manchester uk
Member Since: 14th Jul 2004
Total posts: 363
Posted:Patriarch917 i'ed like to point out afew things if i may. firstly i dont think you've realy grasped the prinicples of evolution as ilustrated by this statement



If our null hypothesis is that life formed by random chance, at what statistical limit shall we reject it?



this ilustrates that you have made the most common mistake made when dealing with evolution. You are under the impression that evolution occurs randomly entirely by chance. this is a mistake and you are right to say that it is stupid. however evolution DOES NOT work by random chance evolution is the product of natural selection. this is the total oposite of chance and is an entirely non random proccess. an analogy for natural selection would be finding a path through a maze at every junction in the maze you randomly pick the paths to follow (this represents the random mutation). however as well as this you also eliminate any path that is going the wrong way (this is natural selection eliminateing any creatures that are unfit to survive). it is clear useing this method that you would very quickly find a path through the maze even though all the routes chosen were picked at random because the routes elminated were chosen in a totaly non random way.



next



Don't be distracted by the artists illustrations and speculation. Look at the actual evidence. The only links ever found between apes and men have been fakes... and not very good ones ("Piltdown Man"). Other than that, all we've found have been apes, men, and that tooth that turned out to be from a pig ("Nebraska Man").



I dont meen to be rude when i say this but this statment is throught intent or ignoranance totaly and uterly wrong. It also illustates you your self have not bothered to look at the "acutal evidence" you encourage us to look for yes the two examples you quote were fakes. however i again point out that it was not scripture that identifyed the forgary it was science. i sincearly hope your statement was made out of ignorance instead of a willfull desire to misinform here is a list of prominant fossils showing the Evolution of hummans there are aproximatly 19 examples listed here and this is by no meens a complete list. also below is a picture showing the skulls of humman ancesstors progressing from a common ancestor with chimps to homosapians




Non-Https Image Link






your most glareing mistake seems to be that you haven't actualy looked at any of the fossil evidence regarding evolution if you had you would have known that there is a very compleat fossil record showing the evolution of humans as well as horses and whales to name but afew and if i was in your place i would be ashamed that i had potentaly misslead people with my statments. by pretending to know about a subject i had clearly not investigated even superficaly. and i hope you feel some regret over your comments. you would do well to investigate your subject before makeking such sweaping remarks in future.



finaly we have your statment

Rubbish. All of the worlds top intellectuals think that ID is the best theory... otherwise they wouldnt be top intellectuals. ;-)



firstly i would like to say this stament is techincaly accurate because you have definded a top intellectual as someone that beleaves in ID. Also i would like to say that the defintion of a top intelectual is a subjective matter so for the purpose of this i will assume you meen well educated scientists with backgrounds in practial fields such as math, physics, biology, chemistry, geology (not fasion, english, biblical studys, etc) and so on. i refer you to the following survay done by nature which is widely recognised as one of the top scientific publications in the world.



The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.



also you may want to look at the survay here

that shows that while in the US anyway the generaly population is devided 50%-50% between creationism and evolution when you only take into acount people with a scientific background the shifts to %5-%95 in evolutions favor



evolution is concidered true by almost any serious scientist infact many areas of science wouldn't work if it wasn't. such as resistance management a feild of biology which use the theory of evoultion to predict the and minimise the rate at which virus and bacteria evolve resitance to drugs and they can predict these rates with great accuracy. Hell evolution is even endorsed by the pope himself as fact. so i hope your not a catholic!



evolution is has spent the last 150 years been criticaly examined by the scientific community. it has correctly predicted the discovery of DNA, desease evolveing imunity to drugs as well as 100 other things that every time have agreed with evolution. As well as this theres has been a constant build up of evidence that all supports evolution over the last 100 years in particular espeshaly gentics the evidence at this stage is insurmountable while we can aruge over the fine details of exacly how the proccess works and the intital replicator is still unknown we can say evolution did happen and what ever beleaves you hold will have to be "evolved" to intergrate that.

EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1162833434)


My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Robnunchucks, since Patriarch917 hasn't been around in a while, I'll point out that the first statement of his that you quoted refers to the formation of life in the primordial soup. That is pre-evolution.

That's the main difference between ID and creationisim. ID postulates that the initial "spark" of life was delivered by ( insert whatever off earth influence you like here ) where creationisim says it was all done by GOD. I know it's a small difference, and ID is commonly referred to as "creationisim in drag" ( and really it is ) but the main thrust of ID is to reinforce the belief that life here on Earth began elsewhere.

ID is an idea designed to put doubt in the minds of those who subscribe to the theory of abiogenesis. ( which I do ) I don't buy the argument, but I do admire it.

Creationisim doesn't allow for evolution, however ID does.


Delete

robnunchucks
robnunchucks

enthusiast
Location: manchester uk
Member Since: 14th Jul 2004
Total posts: 363
Posted:fair enough about the first point as to the diffrence between ID and creationism the definition of ID changes depending on who you talk to some people seem to think of it as you do as an inital spark others refer to it as something magicaly creating creatures fully formed. however i would say if ID doesn't preclude evolution why would people refer to is as an alternitive theory to evolution that sounds fairly mutialy excluseive to me? of course i can't actualy find a defintion of ID anyway its all very vauge but the people pushing it in the states definaly dont see it as allowing for evolution and as they invented it im tempted to go with there defintion. are you sure your not confuseing ID with Theistic Evolution?

My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:shush i thought this thread was buried

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Rob, as Coleman stated on the last page, ID is really a wedge theory with the intentions of raising enough doubt in the THEORY of abiogenesis in order to pave the way for introducing creationisim.

It's not Theistic Evolution, when it deals with the creation of life.

Taken this way, what are the chances that life just formed spontaneously ? I hear the math has been done, and the result is a pretty slim chance, let's call it a gazillion to one.

Now let's try to calculate the probability of life coming to earth from an outside source ( God, aliens, meteors, what have you ) and we get a pretty small number, in the order of a gazillion to one.

The idea being, if those are both very small numbers, and both are theories, then, hopefully one can begin to identify a little more with the idea that "we were put here"

THEN comes all the who and why questions, hopefully ( for ID theorists/creationists ) leading to the acceptance that God did it.

The grand plan is to present the idea of abiogenesis as a faith issue, and if you can accept a very slim probability as an article of faith, then you can accept more.

This is the only part of the whole debate that I actually like.The creationist/evolution debate makes for a good read, but this small part of the discussion is where the poetry lies ( yea, I know, weird )

BTW, did anyone else catch what Patriarch 917 was trying to do over on the Global Brain Theory thread,,,,if not,,reread it and keep this thread foremost in mind,

Faithinfire..burried?? not while I'm around. This thread gets my nomination for best thread ever smile


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:this one always made me mad, but i can't stay away or keep mouth shut

like reality tv

(proof evolution is not real cause that has to be a step back or two-not moving foward and better)


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Nice posts Rob, good job! smile

I'm not sure anything will ever change the minds of ID supporters. There have been enough posts in this thread that *should* have made it very clear that ID is just nonsence.

stout, I'm with you on the best thread ever smile

faithinfire, why does it make you mad? We're being matter of fact and addressing each others points well. Do you not think it's a good debate?


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:certain people made me mad
and some of the old tired reactionary arguments
the personal attacks because i happen to believe something they didnt
and the list goes on


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Yea, the personal attacks were pretty saddening, I put it down to passion in belief.

In the grand context of the thread, they were nicely balanced by turn the other cheek virtue,,,, IMO


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:grrr

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

UCOF
UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel

Member Since: 17th Apr 2002
Total posts: 15414
Posted:woof woof

Delete

Drudwyn
Drudwyn

Forget puppy power, Scrappy's just gay
Location: Southampton Uni
Member Since: 27th Aug 2005
Total posts: 632
Posted:All in all this was a very good thread. 34 pages of debate and very few personal attacks. My apologies to those who felt attacked by any points made, but I felt the debate was very well behaved.

Mind you, I got very angry at a letter from a Dr CW Stammers from Bath in the Education letters section of the Independant on the 19th of October this year.

It says, and I quote, "Creationists accept that some change is by evolution. But to claim all life is formed by evolution is contrary to the scientific evidence.

"Evidence for creation and intelligent design? Birds. In a reptile, lung air moves in and out along the same path, as it does in a human lung. In contrast, in the avian (bird) lung, air moves in a continuous path, controlled by non-return valves. A lung that changed in stages from the reptile one towards the avian form simply would not work. Millions of years are rather a long time to go without breathing, and the would be bird would be thoroughly dead.

"The general therory of evolution (no creation at all) is promoted by atheists, who promote their religious desires as fact and refuse to acknowledge God despite the scientific evidence"

Is it just me or is that letter immensely ignorant and lacking in thought? Scientific evidence for God? Awesome! Where is it?


Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...

Delete

robnunchucks
robnunchucks

enthusiast
Location: manchester uk
Member Since: 14th Jul 2004
Total posts: 363
Posted:i've always been amused by accuasations that atheism is a religion. firstly because its pritty hard for an atheist to be religious , in the same way its hard for a computer to also be a ham sandwidge. secondly theres something abit odd about trying to demonise another set of beleafes by clameing that there quite similar to your own. sounds abit like shooting your self in the foot to me biggrin



and stout i've not to date what i've seen seems to still suggest ID is still baised on litteral interpretation of the bible but i guess i might be out of the loop have they updated it to this recently? cos so far all the creationists i've seen basicly make out its gennissis just read with more scientific language

EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1162900164)


My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Yes, the BBC classes atheism as a religion - I have sent them emails about it, but they wont change it.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

robnunchucks
robnunchucks

enthusiast
Location: manchester uk
Member Since: 14th Jul 2004
Total posts: 363
Posted:Realy?? isn't atheism by definition a lack of beleaf in god?



looked up the definition of religion



1

A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

B. 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.





i guess you could argue it comes under 4. however if not beleaveing something (the only tenent of atheism) qualifys as a principle then you get alot of religions infact every belefe you can think of could be classifyed as religous one includeing all scientific principles such as gravity, mathmatics, medicen seems abit sweeping for my taste i guess is atheism persued with zeal or conscientious devotion though? its not like we go to the athistst church every week or do anything to afferm atheism?

EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1162910982)


My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:robnunchucks, I'll agree, basically ID is tightly intertwined with biblical creationisim, however the "poetry" i was referring to was the method(s) creationists were using in an attempt to blur the lines between science and religion. it's not a new idea , I've been hearing the "science is YOUR religion" statement for years, but I've always been curious as to where the idea behind that statement came from, and how someone could make it and still keep a straight face.

Now I know the "logic" behind it ( or at least some of the logic )

The scientists are saying " this is what we THINK happened" where the creationists are saying " we KNOW what happened" but, yes, the creationists are using scientific language,and ideas in order to forward their agenda. I'm not saying it's right, just interesting.

Likewise with the idea that atheisim is a religion, I'm an athiest, and I've never considered myself religious but if we were to define religion as a passionate adherence to a set of beliefs, and, for purposes of this thread, class belief in the theory of evolution as simply that, a belief. Then we have yet another example of people trying to "blur the lines" between science and religion.

Is an agnostic simply an athiest who lacks the strength of conviction to truly embrace their athiesm ? Is agnosticisim motivated by the fear of God ?


Delete

robnunchucks
robnunchucks

enthusiast
Location: manchester uk
Member Since: 14th Jul 2004
Total posts: 363
Posted:i've always thought agnostics are realy just people who dont care about it one way or another an so just ignore the subject entirely.



as for what you were saying about bluring of the lines i've always felt that the whole crux of the arguement rests on the concept of faith. it seems to be the one thing common to all religions that seperates them from science. when it comes to a rational argument between someone of faith and someone of reason it is doomed to fail because no matter how well aruged a point or how overwellming the evidence the religious person can only ever be argued back to the point of haveing to fall back on there faith as soon as that happens they become untouchable faith can't be aruged with rationaly because it is a beleafe not based on reason. religous people feel smug because they have this ultimate arguement to fall back no matter what the evidence or eligence of the arguments against them. and rational people feel annoyed and cheated because they them selfs would never resort to such an argument because it irational they feel cheated because no matter how well they make there points the people of faith have a 100% gaurenteed get out of jail free card. a safty net they themselfs refuse to work with on principle.



its two sides of an idelogical arguemnt that boil down to one side saying we are 100% correct there for anyone who disagrees with us must be wrong. one side saying while we can be 99.9% sure of something we can never to totaly sure we arn't wrong and so are belefs must alow space for us to be shown to be wrong to alow them to change.



my objection to faith would be that it isn't used concistently. if people baised all there choices in life on faith it wouldnt bother me so much. i dont think people should get to pick and chose between faith and reason depending which one sutes them and there beleafes at the time i find it hypocritical. e.g. people never rely on faith to cross a road (close there eyes an walk across with knowlage that whatever happens is gods plan). they use reason they look both ways decided if it is safe to cross and made a decision on the evidence at hand (can i see a car comeing can i hear a car etc)



that what i recon, of course as with any rant its only realy my opionon smile

EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1162913441)


My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

Delete

Sym
Sym

Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk
Member Since: 28th Sep 2004
Total posts: 1858
Posted:two points:

1) I believe that science can explain everything about this world, and that there is nothing outside or 'above' the laws of science. Therefor science is something I believe in even though there is no proof that this is the case (because you cannot disprove a negative). In that way, it is a religion.

2) I think there are 2 types of agnostics: 1 who hasn't really thought about it enough and thinks that they will sit on the fence and 1 who is agnostic because they think that being atheistic is illogical, because the whole idea of god is a question that cannot ever be answered so there is no point in saying that there isn't one. We cannot and never will know for sure if there is a god, because it's not something that science can test with logic, therefore saying there isn't one is illogical.


There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:Agnostics are those people who haven't made up their mind yet as to the existence of god. and yes I know it's the popular definition of the word, and there is the idea that agnostics believe that ideas like the existence of God is basically unknowable.( apathetic agnosticism )

Try to prove that God exists....I can't, but I have enough doubt in my mind to dismiss the existence of God alltogether. I won't however dismiss the opinions of others just because of their spiritual orientation. That IMO, is a grave mistake ( but tempting at times )

They may THINK they have a get out of jail free card, but so do I in a sense, my plans for a deathbed conversion wink

I know what you mean about making decisions based on faith and consistancy, just look at that Haggard guy, will he be saved by his faith, or comdemned. Only God knows for sure. Oh wait,,,can I make that statement as an athiest ?


Delete

Page: 1...2627282930

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [intelligent design v* evolution] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
2. Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [874 replies]
3. Forums > need your help/opinion [14 replies]
4. Forums > Burning Man 09' Evolution [17 replies]
5. Forums > 5/19 The Next Evolution Sideshow

     Show more..