|
Post by MrNice on Nov 30, 2005 13:12:29 GMT -5
You are comparing apples and oranges. Evolution is not a theological/phylosophical explanation of life - it is a physical/material explanation of how ceratin things work, and it has a usefull purpose in biology. It is not a belief. It is proven much more then intelligent design - which is just an idea.
To undermine evolution with creationism is to throw away the basic assumptions on which biology operates - and as you can see there has been alot of progress in the area of biology/medicine.
Intelligent design/creationsism proponents do not offer a sound usefull scietific theory - they just want to attack evolution because in their eyes it devalues their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by pnoopiepnats on Nov 30, 2005 13:13:50 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned evolution is fact, there is evidence everywhere for it. Intelligent design just seems ridiculous, it is religious people refusing to believe the facts and holding onto an outdated theory that there is no evidence for. Agree
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Nov 30, 2005 17:53:26 GMT -5
some one mentioned the atrocities done because of the bible.
I cannot think of any so please educate me
there are hate groups like the kkk that are religious but they are no means a biblically based group and abortion clinic bombers and murderes but agin this people do not follow the bible like it was ment to be inturpretted.
also the crusade were terrible but again not based on the bible but on the catholic church and the popes
the people that canme to america came here because of persecution from the catholic church for believing the bible and not religious rituals made up by men.
my point is that unless you have read the bible specifically the gospels then do not criticize it in ignorance. Also do not base your perceptions of biblical content based on the actions of the catholic church or any other denomination because people add to and take away from the bible and take things out of context. More and more churches are getting away from the bible which is prophesised to happen before the "end times"
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Nov 30, 2005 18:08:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by UnicornTamer on Nov 30, 2005 19:18:20 GMT -5
Back during the evolution of the evolutionary theory there were some who argued for a younger, "Bible-aged" earth. This caused geologists, paleontologists, and other scientists concerned with the age of the earth to do extensive research on the topic and the evidence came up in favor of an earth billions of years old, though for some reason the debate still continues to plague the scientific community.
|
|
|
Post by Bodhi on Dec 1, 2005 0:10:26 GMT -5
And the strongest proponents of evolution 140 years ago where atheists. What's your point again Lsdima? Evolution is a scientific theory, nothing more. It has never been proven, and never will be. In the meantime, it is a very likely theory, so i see nothing wrong with it being taught in schools. However, let us not accept it as proven scientific fact before we have solid proof of it. Also, modern science grew up in an era when religious beliefs were being challenged. I see nothing wrong with challenging "proven" scientific facts now, five hundred years after the birth of modern science. Until we know all the answers, let us please stop acting we do. Evolution and intelligent design both sound like plausible theoroes, as does every other theorum every thought up over the last four centuries. By the way, certain flaws in physics do prove that those laws are not applicable. In this case, it makes no sense to appy faulty laws to nature. Helicopters fly, even though they physically shouldn't, and cannot. Does that mean they don't really fly? See, what your saying is right, and you are right that probally all science is just theories, and that we can never know anything for sure. But like you said, its the most probable theory, therefore it should be taught. If a new thoery was created that had more evidence supporting it, then that would be accepted by science. That's how science works, it evolves(no pun intended) and older outdated theories are discarded when newer thoeries that have more evidence are discovered. What I don't like is this concept of a theory is being misused by people with an agenda. They have propaganda that is trying to tell people evolution is a theory. Now when you know about science you know that yes, this is true and all science is theories, but it doesn't mean there is no evidence for it or that it is wrong. Yet some people hear evolution is a thoery and think, well it must just be wrong then and creationism must be right. That is what creationists are trying to convince people who don't understand the real definition of a scientific theory. If they were really concerned about kids learning scientific theories that might be flawed, they would want to question the teaching of Quantum Physics, medical theories, phsychological theories, etc... But they don't, they only want to question evolution because it contradicts the Bible and they can't have that. This whole debate seems stupid to me, since you have to basically suspend all reality to make the creationist theory fit. I have one question for any creationists out there, when did dinosaurs exist?
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Dec 1, 2005 0:13:05 GMT -5
Russ, I didn't blame all the world's violence on religion. shypsychologyguy said that he had never heard of Biblical atricities. I filled in that gap.
As for who is to blame, let's look at the main character of the Bible: God. Who could be more bloodthirsty and cruel? He sounds much worse than Voldemort or Sauron.
|
|
|
Post by Bodhi on Dec 1, 2005 0:16:17 GMT -5
WWI was fought by and because of social darwinists How so? I believe it was fought in a nutshell because of various alliances that were created amongst European nations that eventually came to a head and war was triggered.
|
|
|
Post by Bodhi on Dec 1, 2005 0:36:03 GMT -5
Science cannot afford to be closeminded on issues that are unproven, which includes the existance of the universe. I would think that question is proven, considering we can observe the universe's existence. I guess the only alternative would be this is all an illusion or dream. So I guess it all boils down to Descartes saying, "cogito, ergo sum", I think, therefore I am. That the only thing we can know for sure is we exist. But this all gets into more philosophical ideas, rather than scientific ones.
|
|
|
Post by GreenFerret on Dec 1, 2005 0:39:38 GMT -5
As opposed to the billions of people who could possibly be killed someday by scientific nuclear weapons? Even the Earth itself? Let us not blame all of the earth's violence on religion please. People kill each other because it's the fastest and speediest way of solving their problems, nothing more. Some of the most destructive wars in history have been fought by non-believers, so get off your high anti-religious horse with me. WWI was fought by and because of social darwinists, little better than those who created evolution, even endorsed the theory actively on behalf of the then existing "scientific" communities. WWII could also be said to be staged by social darwinists, as was the civil wars in Russia in the 1920s. There have been many who have killed in the name of science and social darwinism. Racism and ethnic cleansing largely depended on "scientific evidence" as well. Don't blame religion for all the world's problems. Blame the leadership instead, many of whom were not religious at all. Oh come on. No one said ONLY religions were to blame for atrocities, or were to blame for ALL the world's problems. Don't twist the argument to suit your fancy. That post was about the fact that the Christian religion, in the Bible itself, encouraged atrocities. I remember when I was a kid and still Christian, reading through the Bible and coming across that passage where the father throws his daughter to the mob to be raped in order to keep the mob from going after the angels that are staying in his home. Pretty disturbing stuff--I've sure never forgotten it. I can't see any real reason why the Bible should be advanced above all other ancient texts as the true word of the supreme deity. What is special about it other than its traditional acceptance as the word of god, and its adherents' infuriating and completely inarguable claim that you "just gotta have faith." WHY? What is special about faith over hope, or humanity, over anything at all? What's wrong with challenging scientific theories? Nothing, if you have something legitimate to challenge it with. When your "challenge" is "what if some guy waved his hand and created everything in seven days? you can't prove it didn't happen!--" that makes no sense. No, Intelligent Design is NOT a scientifically plausible theory. It may be an ideologically plausible theory, but science is not about gut feelings, baseless faith, or wishful thinking. And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but helicopters aren't magic as far as I know. Just because it's amazing and complex doesn't mean it's breaking the laws of physics.
|
|
|
Post by Bodhi on Dec 1, 2005 0:54:15 GMT -5
Yes Yes!! And who formed those alliances? I'll tell you: Social Darwinists in the govts of Germany and Austria and France, etc. These govts ascribed to the Malthusian theory of the eighteenth century, which ascribed all wars in history to overpopulation. This overpopulation was caused in large part by the "weeds of the Earth." By this, they meant Catholics, Jews, Slavs, etc. Basically, all non-white Protestant groups of the world. In practice this become anyone who thought and looked differently than they did. War was concieved as a tool by the Imperial state, to rid the world of those "Weeds." This also later become the basis for all ethnic cleansing of the nineteenth and twentieth century, and i'm not just talking about Nazi Germany, man. So WWI culminated in all political manuevering, all alliances. Because at the heart of it all was the intention to kill off the "weeds." Planned Parenthood of the US was also started in the 1920s by a woman who believed in killing off the "weeds" of the earth. This kind of crap makes me so sick. No, I think you are mixing things up. You are saying racism is social darwinism. There was plenty of racism before Darwin, and plenty of people who thought other races were lesser then them. Look at slavery. I don't think the theory of evolution contributed to the leaders in Europe not trusting other types of people. I think that distrust was always there, and has always been there in humans. We always are scared of the unknown. To say that if there was no theory of evolution, WWI wouldn't have happened, is wrong in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by thedman05 on Dec 1, 2005 5:48:04 GMT -5
the people that canme to america came here because of persecution from the catholic church for believing the bible and not religious rituals made up by men. I assume you were talking about the Puritans. If you were, you should know that Puritans aren't entirely blameless in history. In the 17th century there was a little-known Puritan called Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of England (self appointed, and the only military dictator in English history). He was responsible for a few massacres in Ireland that have been the foundation of the 'loving', 'caring' relationship between Ireland and England for the last 350 years. (Can you tell I was being sarcastic there : He was also very popular with the people of England. He made sure that anyone that didn't hold his Puritan values were tortured and executed.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Dec 1, 2005 14:36:57 GMT -5
I really need to apologize to all of yall here about letting myself loose on this topic last night. I deleted all my posts in this thread, so don't feel like someone else did it. I don't really trust myself to post here in this Debates' forum anymore. I take things too personally.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Dec 1, 2005 17:25:32 GMT -5
russ send me a pm and let me know what you said basically.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Dec 1, 2005 17:26:46 GMT -5
why did you delete my post? there was nothing wrong with your post, you feel as many other people do
|
|