|
Post by Ave` on Oct 6, 2007 10:44:37 GMT -5
OMg Im not joking. Now you may go and kill yourself. I'm confused.. are you Christian? I thought they were sposed to love their neighbours, not tell people to kill themself. emm maybe when you stop making assumptions perhaps youll see things more clearer. Im merely saying that what miami was saying both evolution and creationism isnt a fact so your brialliant idea to suggest muslims country to teach evolution is pretty ridiculous. See? Instead of assuming Im joking or a christian Im giving you permission to cut your wrist if you cant handle ppl disagreeing to you.
|
|
|
Post by avax on Oct 6, 2007 10:56:40 GMT -5
I refuse to get involved in this thread or what I've said years ago but for the really piqued, search the earlier threads for dialogue between DaViD and others.
I will say that I'm increasingly wary of anyone who places too much belief in any single mode of thought, including the "scientific" of whose reliability is also often questionable.
|
|
|
Post by Ajeno on Oct 6, 2007 13:55:31 GMT -5
They taught both creationism and evolution when I was in school but only to a certain extent. I feel evolution aswell as creationism can be taught in school, but "religion" should be discussed at home.And dropping the Holocaust from history lessons is complete horsesh*t but hey its ok to belive that the prophet muhammed saw the archangel gabriel in a cave because hey,thats actually true.
Creationism and what we know as "religion" should be treated as seperate imo..Creationist's argue Irreducible complexity and the angular momentum of planets and moons to assert that the God of religious text's is real and is the creator of all things and i think thats wrong.
|
|
swordcane
Junior Member
~quappuccino~
Posts: 116
|
Post by swordcane on Oct 6, 2007 17:50:58 GMT -5
Can I also point out in this thread that microevolution (using short lifespan creatures such as mayflies) has been proven with repeatable results? So even if you don't believe in the single-cell to man evolutionary timeline, you can't deny that evolution is factual at least on a smaller scale.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 6, 2007 18:15:31 GMT -5
The whole methodology of science relies on continually questioning hypotheses. In contrast we have religious ideas, which actively encourages people not to question but instead accept ideas based on 'faith'. You obviously are not familiar with the amount of evidence there is for Darwinian evolution. As there are VAST amounts of evidence. Unlike with creationist theory for which there is, none. In science there is no blind faith. Everything is established according to observation and empirical evidence. ****sighs, smh**** no empirical evidence establishes how the universe was created - if you believe any theory, evolution or creationism, you are judging on blind faith.... also, your observations on religion are based on your blind faith in the prejudices you have....religions, and scientific theories, evolve with time.....and *perhaps*, if someone had taught you this, then you would not have the blind faith you have in your belief that " religious ideas actively encourages people not to question but instead accept ideas based on 'faith'"... when anyone with an ounce of knowledge of the history of religion knows that each new religion was founded on questioning the assumptions and conventional wisdom of a preceding, established faith.....indeed, just like scientific theories... the two have much more in common than you believe.... if you read Genesis and the Koran, and are familiar with how other religions explain the natural world, then it is OBVIOUS that they helped to shape the scientific theories that are accepted as consensus today....the ancients had a pretty good idea of how the world worked - but ancient observations on the natural world are always tied up with and cannot be separated from religion....it wasn't all superstition, as you've claimed... ancient "religious" observations on the natural world have a place in a class on the history of scientific theory, something that's missing in current curriculums.... blind faith in any theory, evolution or creationism, is dangerous.... theories evolve and mutate with time as they are challenged and new theories based on fresh interpretation/explanation of observed evidence is proposed that question assumptions held....it's as true of religion as it is of science (natural or social), i'm afraid.... so, it's perfectly *possible* the scientific theories we accept now may be proven wrong in the future... s***, i'm probably a more able defender of evolution (cuz EVERY theory, without exception, evolves and nothing is constant - about the only thing that can be proven with empirical evidence) than you are.... peace
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 6, 2007 18:28:52 GMT -5
Can I also point out in this thread that microevolution (using short lifespan creatures such as mayflies) has been proven with repeatable results? So even if you don't believe in the single-cell to man evolutionary timeline, you can't deny that evolution is factual at least on a smaller scale. i don't think anyone's denying everything evolves....and the "humans were formed out of clay" theory is...well, actually it mirrors the theory that we evolved out of a single cell or matter, dunnit? as i said, i find both fundamentalists quite tiresome....as most theories agree on the fundamentals: it's just a disagreement over how to phrase the creation of the universe....assuming the universe was "created" in a *big bang*, something that has yet to be proven with empirical evidence... and in the meanwhile, everyone forgets the real "truth": that all theories mutate and evolve under questioning..... but it's really part of a much larger issue of how much public schools should cater/cave in (depending on your POV) to parents' and adults' beliefs and ideologies....which could be solved by presenting theories as theories instead of fact....but that may provoke kids into questioning all sorts of assumptions held by adults - oh the horror! lol no seriously, that is what it all essentially boils down to....adults too scared to let kids think for themselves.... peace
|
|
swordcane
Junior Member
~quappuccino~
Posts: 116
|
Post by swordcane on Oct 6, 2007 18:58:59 GMT -5
Miaim, I know there are people who believe in Creationism on a less literal sense, but there are just as many that believe it is word-for-word, day-by-day as seen in the scriptures.
Also, please, for the sake of this discussion, distinguish between "theory" (scientific definition) and "theory" (common useage).
The common useage of "theory" is that a theory is a guess, a hypothetical account of what could be/could have been. Like, traffic is unusually slow, so you just think "Must have been an accident." Sure, you may have limited data based in prior experiance, but you don't know, and you haven't tested it (looking to wreckage, police, etc) so it's really just a guess.
Theory in science is different. A pretty good definition can be found in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 6, 2007 20:28:40 GMT -5
you would do well to distinguish between the two yourself, as: "I know there are people who believe in Creationism on a less literal sense, but there are just as many that believe it is word-for-word, day-by-day as seen in the scriptures" clearly fits the common, as opposed to the scientific, definition of "theory"....
and your point is?
mine is that people are too quick to believe they are "right" even though they cannot demonstrate, let alone support, their theories with empirical evidence...
and for reasons only known to themselves cannot admit they just "don't know".... in other words, they are asserting their blind faith in a theory they cannot prove.... which is why i find both sides "tiresome"....
what's wrong with not knowing?
peace
|
|
swordcane
Junior Member
~quappuccino~
Posts: 116
|
Post by swordcane on Oct 6, 2007 20:59:10 GMT -5
mine is that people are too quick to believe they are "right" even though they cannot demonstrate, let alone support, their theories with empirical evidence... But that's exactly what we're saying the difference is. Evolution *is* able to be demonstrated and *does* have empirical evidence to support it. And I don't know why you're saying that I have also confused the definitions. I pointed out that many do believe that Creationism is literal as found in religious texts because you keep saying that most people accept that Creationism is a metaphore. A metaphore for what, then? Creationism, aka "Intelligent Design", is the believe that a higher power created this world and all living creatures out of nothingness. Creationism states that everything that exists today exists as the higher power created it. If you change that, you are no longer talking about Creationism. You can debate about whether the creator's "day" is the same as man's "day", etc, but that doesn't change what's at the heart of Creationism.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 6, 2007 21:20:55 GMT -5
" And I don't know why you're saying that I have also confused the definitions. I pointed out that many do believe that Creationism is literal as found in religious texts because you keep saying that most people accept that Creationism is a metaphore. " or maybe you don't understand why because you didn't read the article Zoff posted? Prof Reiss estimates that one in 10 people in the UK now believes in literal interpretations of religious creation storiesnews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7028639.stmso, the claim is based on " estimates"...and either way, " 1 in 10" is far from " many" people, as you are claiming..... in other words, the vast majority (n this case, 9 out of 10) of people do NOT believe in your literal definition of creationsim (or ID if you prefer).....assuming, which we shouldn't if we are going to base ourselves on the scientific definition of "theory", Prof Reiss' " estimates" are correct, of course.... er sorry, what was your point again? honestly, practice what you preach: base your arguments on the empirical evidence....some of you are your own worst enemies.... peace
|
|
swordcane
Junior Member
~quappuccino~
Posts: 116
|
Post by swordcane on Oct 6, 2007 21:38:54 GMT -5
Miaim, just because they don't believe in it exactly literally, that doesn't mean they believe in it in a symbolic way as you are suggesting. Like my creater's "day" vs man's "day" example; there are plenty of possibilities that are not the exact literal interpretation yet are not simply symbolic interpretations.
And can we please keep to discussing this civilly? I have not insulted or spoken to you rudely at any point, and yet twice already you've asked me "And you point is?"
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 6, 2007 21:58:11 GMT -5
er, you told me to check the common and scientific definitions of theory -
and yet you are now demanding that i accept and discuss your theory by common definition (since you have yet to offer a shred of empirical evidence that anyone but a tiny minority of people believe in literal creationism) is fact on blind faith.....
who's insulting who's intelligence?
which definition of theory are you going to use? or are you going to keep flipping back and forth between the common and scientific definition in order to prop up your belief, or theory by common definition, that most people believe in literal creationism?
but to get back on topic: please explain how believing in metaphorical creationism is incompatible with accepting Darwin's theory of evolution - if possible, this time, with support of some empirical evidence, please....
otherwise, you're not much different than the literal creationists - you're demanding people accept your beliefs and common-definition theories based on blind faith, not observation of empirical evidence.....
and yes, this is my point: supporters of evolution should be a lot more careful about how they present their arguments instead of playing fast and loose with the evidence....get it? it's not an attack nor an insult: merely exposing the inconsistency with logic and reason....
peace
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 6, 2007 23:53:04 GMT -5
kevin, try putting words in context.....you know, unlike the literalists who don't... even a literal reading of my posts does not support your interpretations, if you can call them that.... go on, try and explain in a rational, logical and consistent manner how 6m out of 60m is "many"....or how having things in common is the same as equating things/people/ideas.... i really don't see what your beef with literalists is - after all, y'all jump to faulty conclusions based on assumptions, selective choice of evidence, irrational logic and inconsistent reasoning to support your faulty conclusion...guess the sight of yourself in the mirror spooks you too! lol peace
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 7, 2007 0:36:37 GMT -5
oh, so now having something in common with someone/thing is "lumping" them together - as opposed to "equating" them..... ? is that your best shot at explaining rationally, logically and consistently how 6m out of 60m is "many"....or how having things in common is the same as equating things/people/ideas? aw well....shan't rub it in.... peace
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 7, 2007 1:43:51 GMT -5
let me repeat: Prof Reiss estimates that one in 10 people in the UK now believes in literal interpretations of religious creation storiesnews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7028639.stmwhich means, by the scientific definition of theory, they very well may not exist.... so, the entire assumption of the thread, that the religious are trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us, is a guesstimate, at best.... in other words, it's based on an assumption which isn't backed by empirical evidence....see, you're just as capable of disregarding very basic principles of science as the creation literalists.....as you obviously do not require hard evidence to jump to the conclusion that the creation literalists are trying to impose their beliefs on the public school system.... peace
|
|