Evolutionary Debate by AnthonyT

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Jack ?
That's generally known as Pascal's Wager.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Heh... I'm taking it you don't agree with my way of thinking here. That's freedom, ain't it?

Thanks for the article. I really had no idea that there was already a name for this particular way of thinking. Just goes to show what I always say about none of us ever having an original thought.

Now, if we can all get past the part about him being French, I think it's a pretty sound theory. I'm not a gambler by trade, but I do play quite a bit of poker, and this just seems like the smart gamble to me.

I am in no way saying that I'm doing such a thing now. I don't buy in either scenario, though I won't deny their legitimacy either. I don't see why one should have to chose to believe in either, or the possibility of both. I won't go on living my life differently for either one. I'm just saying that perhaps in my old age, when my body has been failing me, if I still haven't seen anything that makes me believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist, whether it has been scientifically proven that we evolved from animals or not, I will probably take the "Hell Avoidance Insurance".

As far as Mr. Science jerk-off is concerned, you're god damned right that evolution has no place in public schools. No God in public schools, no evolution in public schools... period. If you want to know about either, then pick up a book on your own damn time.

Don't even try to argue with me that you can't get a decent job without a knowledge of evolution. You know my real reason behind me saying that evolution does not belong in schools anymore than God does. Do not try to cleverly twist my words, because you look like a mindless shithead when you do.

As far as everybody believing in evolution except for Pakastan and America.... whatever. You're never going to prove that to me and I don't live there to know myself one way or the other. Even if this were the case, I would just tell you that it's because people in America and Pakastan aren't as easily shepparded around by the scientists and the elite who tell them what to think. Show me an entire country where every single citizen believes in either God or evolution and I will show you a country full of brainless slaves.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 6:23 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
if I still haven't seen anything that makes me believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist

No one can prove that, which is why science doesn't even touch the supernatural! Anything above the five senses is more or less speculation.

And, overall, science doesn't claim to know everything (or, anything, really, if you want to be deep*) - it merely tries to explain things as is observable and testable.

One last thing, and then you can proceed to eat me. There are always crazies. Just because the athiest scientists get the most hype - or whatever - doesn't mean there aren't plenty of religious ones (like my biology teacher in junior high, for example). Or, y'know, Catholics? Hasn't the pope or somebody given it the okay?

Knowledge, language, mathematics, etc. are tools, nothing more. The only real "truths" are what we percieve and accept.

*Are we really all just in the Matrix?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
No one can prove that, which is why science doesn't even touch the supernatural! Anything above the five senses is more or less speculation.

I don't think we as a species are nearly as smart as we give ourselves credit for. Surely science will never prove that there isn't a God. This is only something that you can decide for yourself, but I think that it's unfortunate that militant atheist pricks like Dawkin's are actively trying to make people lose their faith. I don't like people coming to my door telling me to find God either. Johova's Witnesses are notorious for that where I live.

Quote:
And, overall, science doesn't claim to know everything (or, anything, really, if you want to be deep*) - it merely tries to explain things as is observable and testable.

Perhaps Science doesn't claim to know everything, but it never thinks twice about trying to prove somebody wrong with its facts and theories and make them look like they're ignorant if they don't just buy something because the "experts" say it's true on a 10 second clip on the nightly news.

Quote:
One last thing, and then you can proceed to eat me. There are always crazies. Just because the athiest scientists get the most hype - or whatever - doesn't mean there aren't plenty of religious ones (like my biology teacher in junior high, for example). Or, y'know, Catholics? Hasn't the pope or somebody given it the okay?

I'm not aware of the Pope doing that, but I wouldn't be suprised. I see no reason why evolution couldn't have happened and it was simply the way that we explain how God has done it all from the start here. I think, considering this very valid possibility, the Pope has shown a lot of class by coming out and saying that it is possible for evolution and God to co-exist. My arguement is not against the science itself. My arguement is against Big Gov forcing it down everybodys throats and not allowing God to be taught in school at the same time. The whole thing just reeks of agenda. Read "Brave New World" and you might grasp what I'm trying to say here.

I feel that neither have place in a public, government sponsored, school. If you pay to go to a school that teaches evolution... then fine. My youngest brother is going to a science and math school for smart kids for his last 2 years of high school. It's pretty much him and a ton of Asians there. I'm sure he'll learn a lot about evolution there, but that's okay because it's his and my parents choice. If you want to pay to go to a religious school, more power too you. That is your choice as well.

Quote:
Knowledge, language, mathematics, etc. are tools, nothing more. The only real "truths" are what we percieve and accept.

I couldn't agree with you more. Well said.

Quote:
Are we really all just in the Matrix?

Another equally valid explanation for it all. Seriously. What the scientists and religious zealots fail to consider is the possibility that neither one of them are even close to being right.

I wouldn't dream of "eating" you..... unless you looked really tasty. :) I only snapped a bit earlier on somebody because they are rude with their replies and I don't take very kindly to that. Your post was nothing of the sort and I thank you for keeping a debate type approach rather than be condescending and accusatory.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 7:15 PM

Quote:
Perhaps Science doesn't claim to know everything, but it never thinks twice about trying to prove somebody wrong with its facts and theories and make them look like they're ignorant if they don't just buy something because the "experts" say it's true on a 10 second clip on the nightly news.

Um...that's what science is about...disproving false theories and proving correct ones. The media is frequently overzealous in its hyping of new theories and no one should take a 10-second clip as gospel, but ignorance is ignorance, if you've never taken a chemistry class you are likely ignorant of the principles of chemnistry, pointing that out is simply stating a fact.

Quote:
I'm not aware of the Pope doing that, but I wouldn't be suprised.

The last pope said something along the lines of that evolution is real and that science ans religion can co-exist.

Quote:
My arguement is not against the science itself. My arguement is against Big Gov forcing it down everybodys throats and not allowing God to be taught in school at the same time.

Um...science is science, by your reasoning we shouldn't be teaching physics, chemistry, geology etc. in school. Few people are FORCED to take a class that includes evolution, evolution is taught as part of biology because it is an integral part of biology, it is the foundation of modern biology and the glue that holds biology together. If you don't want to learn about evolution just avoid biology classes.

Religion is not a science and thus is not taught in science class, I have nothing against religious classes but they should be in social studies not science.

Quote:
The whole thing just reeks of agenda. Read "Brave New World" and you might grasp what I'm trying to say here.

I've read it and I don't get what you are saying, like I said before evolution is science and is therefore taught in science classes, it is no different than physics or chemistry (except that it's a bit harder to observe)

Quote:
I feel that neither have place in a public, government sponsored, school.

Evolution has a integral place in any classroom that teaches biology.

Quote:
What the scientists and religious zealots fail to consider is the possibility that neither one of them are even close to being right.

Actually scientists do consider that...frequently. Science is about disproving false theories, if evolution is wrong then eventually science will discover that and a new theory will take hold. However given the vast amount of evidence for evolution it is unlikely that anyone will be able to disprove it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 7:34 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Heh... I'm taking it you don't agree with my way of thinking here. That's freedom, ain't it?

Nope, but that's freedom, ain't it ?

I file this whole matter under the "WTFK" category.

As far as afterlives go, we don't know, we can't actually *know*, it's unpossible, so far as that goes ain't no sense in worrying about it, especially when some folk do so to the exclusion of here and now.

I figure of all the possible and potential afterlifes, were they all every bit as real as each other, it'd be Valhalla for me most probably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einherjar

And me being me, I'll probably try to feel up the Valkyrie when she comes to haul me off and get slapped silly for it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 7:34 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Are there any middle grounders out there like me, who enjoy a little from column A and a little from column B, and who are waiting for a column C to split the difference?"

Or is it very retarded of me to think this way?

I think it is a sign of intelligence to question everything.

I think it is pretty well established that micro-evolution is a fact. Those moths and bacteria and countless other populations have been observed directly to change their gene pools over time.

The debate really comes with MACRO-evolution. What do we REALLY know about what happened millions and billions of years ago? We have fossils and bones, geology and dating procedures. That's about it. We can extrapolate and make intelligent, educated guesses. But in the end, most of macro-evolution is speculation, and therefore debatable.

It is debatable whether life evolved out of some warm, wet soup, or out of semi-conducting rocks. It is still debatable whether humans evolved from some primate ancester or from an aquatic ancestor. It is still debatable whether macro-evolution occurs gradually or in sudden leaps following catastrophes. Some folks may say the body of knowledge is beyond these debates. But I say, how on earth do they KNOW for sure? Not a single one of us was there. It is all inference, and therefore subject to error.

I am religious, and I pretty much accept evolutionary theory. But I also know both belief systems rest on assumptions and I could very well be wrong on one or both counts.

Popular scientific opinion has changed enough times throughout history that we should know entire paradigms can be turned on their ears when just one assumption is proven wrong.

There is definitely room for all sorts of interesting twists in the coming evolution of evolutionary theory.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 7:42 PM

Quote:
Science good. Science the way. Science always right. No Science = Ignorance.

There's no winning with you people.

I'm going to file this under "WTFK" with Frem and let you uber-smart people can go on and disprove God for us. There's no way my undeveloped and ignorant brain can compete with or even keep up with your infinately superior brainpower.

So Pardon me while I take my leave now. I'm going to find me a monkey and get liquored up and start Devolving with it.

Edit: BTW... I saw your newest post Canttakethesky and I like it. Well said.

Frem feelin up the valkries.... that's cool. I wanna go to Valhalla too now.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Science good. Science the way. Science always right. No Science = Ignorance.

What I was saying is that lack of knowledge is ignorance, it's a simple fact, I've never studied Art History, I am ignorant in the field of Art History, I have never studied Organic Chemistry, I am ignorant in the field of Organic Chemistry. Saying that someone who has never studied evolution is ignorant of evolution is simply stating a fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 7:50 PM

Yeah, well if I learn math, that information isn't going to change before I die.

They used to teach kids that the earth was flat in school at one point.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 7:50 PM

By the way, just out of curiosity why do you put a link to your myspace in your sig when it's set to private so that no one can see it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

They used to teach kids that the earth was flat in school at one point.

First, by the time that formal schools were built sailors had pretty much figured out that the Earth wasn't flat (from what I understand the extent of that belief was much smaller than is generally thought).

Second, like I said, when scientists discover new information that disproves old theories the old theories go away, some day we might hit the point where we truly know everything but that's a long way off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By the way, just out of curiosity why do you put a link to your myspace in your sig when it's set to private so that no one can see it?

Sorry bout that. I never used to have it private, that's just recently. My friend is having a custody battle for his kid and the insane mom has been trying to friend me and talk to me on MySpace. I didn't want to give her ammo like bringing my profile to court and telling them that my friend has crazy friends like me. I'll remove the private when that's all over, but until then, maybe I should remove it from my sig.

'Course, you could always friend me if you wanted to know more.

As far as the whole school thing is concerned, I see my little brother who is only 12 years old who is convinced there is no god and has the spagetti monster up on his desktop. I don't think he has been around long enough to be making up his mind about such things, and I know for a fact that he is basing his decision not on researching the possibilities himself, but only making them based on the one sided information he gets at school and TV, compounded by the fact that the church has been in a horrible light since the kids have come out about preists molesting kids. This is my problem with evolution being taught in school, and I believe this is how we will all one day live in a world with only science, completely devoid of religion. Hence the "Brave New World" reference. It's like government is telling you to believe in one thing while completely sheilding you from another.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 8:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
By the way, just out of curiosity why do you put a link to your myspace in your sig when it's set to private so that no one can see it?

Sorry bout that. I never used to have it private, that's just recently. My friend is having a custody battle for his kid and the insane mom has been trying to friend me and talk to me on MySpace. I didn't want to give her ammo like bringing my profile to court and telling them that my friend has crazy friends like me. I'll remove the private when that's all over, but until then, maybe I should remove it from my sig.

I always love it when I get dragged into other peoples problem...don't you? Good luck with that.

Quote:
As far as the whole school thing is concerned, I see my little brother who is only 12 years old who is convinced there is no god and has the spagetti monster up on his desktop. I don't think he has been around long enough to be making up his mind about such things, and I know for a fact that he is basing his decision not on researching the possibilities himself, but only making them based on the one sided information he gets at school and TV, compounded by the fact that the church has been in a horrible light since the kids have come out about preists molesting kids. This is my problem with evolution being taught in school, and I believe this is how we will all one day live in a world with only science, completely devoid of religion. Hence the "Brave New World" reference. It's like government is telling you to believe in one thing while completely sheilding you from another.

I understand where you are coming from, but evolution is the foundation of biology, you can't teach biology well without teaching evolution. Also evolution does not preclude religion, it just requires that religions adjust a little to fit the way the world works. The growth of knowledge through science explains away a great deal of what used to be in the realm of religion, whether this is good or bad depends on your opinion but the other option is suppression of knowledge, not usually something that should be aspired to.

As for religion in schools, as I said I have nothing agasint it as long as they are not taught as science. The problem is that teaching one religion to the exclusion of others is against the Constitution and isn't fair either. The only solution is to teach every religion or at least every major one, either way there would little time in a school year to learn any large amount about all the different religions without devoting an inordinate amount of time to it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 8:41 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hey all,

I wanted to interject something.

Some people have said that evolution shouldn't be taught in school.

Others have said that religion shouldn't be taught in school.

When I was in school, I learned about philosophy. I learned about art. I learned about the religions of ancient Greece and Rome.

None of that helped me get a job, but all of it enriched my character.

I hate it when someone says that X shouldn't be taught at school.

We should be looking for ways to teach more things at school, not fewer things.

I'm still bummed they cut out Summer school.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:08 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"my little brother who is only 12 years old who is convinced there is no god ...I don't think he has been around long enough to be making up his mind about such things"

I was just a tad younger when I decided religion was a fraud.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I always love it when I get dragged into other peoples problem...don't you? Good luck with that.

Yeah... I hate it. I can't believe she had the nerve to contact me.

Funny thing.... reading that sentence, I thought you were refering to me dragging you into my problems. I had to read it a couple of times before I got it. So strange how when we write things the meanings can be so distorted from their original intentions. Easy to see how many avoidable fights get kicked off online.

Quote:
....Also evolution does not preclude religion, it just requires that religions adjust a little to fit the way the world works.

....the other option is suppression of knowledge, not usually something that should be aspired to.

...I have nothing agasint [religion in schools] as long as they are not taught as science.

Agreed, agreed and agreed.

This whole debate would be nullified in my eyes if the following conditions were met. I don't think they're all that unreasonable.

A) It is guaranteed that evolution and science will never be taught to kids in a way where the kids are made to feel pressured that they have to choose one or the other. (God/Religion or Evolution/Science)

B) God (Allah/Buddah) be taught as a part of Social Studies, or Humanities and be given an equal amount of time devoted as evolution. If there are enough kids from non-christian religions at the school, they should also have time devoted to their religions as well. (We don't need PC laws telling us we need to teach the Koran to Christians and Athiests kids if there aren't any Muslims, and vice versa). The situation at each school will be unique and should be weighed accordingly.

C) Assholes like Dawkins don't get anymore spotlight. Dawkins is the Jesse Jackson of Evo/God. He exists simply to divide the two, enflame and enrage people and make sensational news stories. He's a big part of the reason why many religious people aren't going to accept evolution in the first place. I don't have a problem with somebody being Athiest. I have a problem with somebody telling everybody else about it and ramming it down their throats. Surely he's the main reason that my brother is an atheist at 12 years old, and he reads some of the most terrible passages of the Bible to people to show what a horrible person God was. At the same time he's never tried to actually read the bible. He pulls quotes off of the internet that people like Dawkins tell him to tell other people.

I think my Uncle said it best when he said "Let the homosexuals screw on the front steps of City Hall for all I care, I just don't need to hear about them everyday". I think that's advice that we could all live by.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BTW 6-string

You seem to think there is no downside to being non-scientific. That if there is a god you win but if there isn't you lose; whereas learning or not learning science is neutral.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a serious donwnside to not knowing science, and that is to be in a stagnant economy with low-paid jobs. Like Pakistan with its madrassa-educated population.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

OOOHHHH - I WIN ! I rolled a double!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"my little brother who is only 12 years old who is convinced there is no god ...I don't think he has been around long enough to be making up his mind about such things"

I was just a tad younger when I decided religion was a fraud.

Good for you Rue. I've decided quite a while ago from other posts that you are a government yes-man (woman?), and there's no suprise that you've made up your mind about this at such a young age. You come off as a very cold and robotic person and imagining a world in the future where all the kids grow up to be like you is very scary indeed.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:20 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"A) It is guaranteed that evolution and science will never be taught to kids in a way where the kids are made to feel pressured that they have to choose one or the other. (God/Religion or Evolution/Science)"

I don't think science is creating the showdown. It's the religious folk who say 'my way or the highway.'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"A) It is guaranteed that evolution and science will never be taught to kids in a way where the kids are made to feel pressured that they have to choose one or the other. (God/Religion or Evolution/Science)"

I don't think science is creating the showdown. It's the religious folk who say 'my way or the highway.'

This is because there is no religion in school and Science already won...

Next....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I keep most of my personal and professional life off of here for many reasons.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:24 PM

In all seriousness Rue, that is the most brilliant thing I've ever heard you say.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:28 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"This is because there is no religion in school and Science already won...

Next...."

There is no religion in school b/c, well, government funded-schools aren't supposed to teach religion. People can learn their religion from their church/ temple/ synagogue/ family/ whatever.

Bur science isn't taught in those places, so it's taught in schools. You know, science, that useful set of theories that makes your computer possible.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:28 PM

KHYRON

Rue a government yes-woman? Lol. But I agree, a future where kids grow up to be questioning and independent thinkers would indeed be scary. We need more sheep.

I dismissed God when I found out there are no such things as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. It was a very traumatic day for me.

I think I was 21.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Rue a government yes-woman? Lol. But I agree, a future where kids grow up to be questioning and independent thinkers would indeed be scary. We need more sheep.

I dismissed God when I found out there are no such things as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. It was a very traumatic day for me.

I think I was 21.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Do you realize how rediculous you sound? You have closed your mind. Freedom from God isn't the same thing as freedom of the mind. Or vice versa. If you haven't been paying attention, I haven't made up my mind either way on any of this. To be a little kid and say there is no God is sad. I was probably around 19 when I stopped praying and now I don't know what I believe. But to come out and say that there is no God and then say you're not sheeple because of that belief is plain lunacy.

And Rue, evolution didn't do anything to make my computer work, unless of course, you're teaching the evolution of the typewriter to the modernday PC.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:37 PM

KHYRON

In that context, the "we need more sheep" comment was meant in reaction to your comment that it would be a scary future if kids grew up to be like rue.

But if you want to see it as a knock against believers, go ahead.

"To be a little kid and say there is no God is sad" - no, it was actually quite liberating. It meant I could finally be naughty without fearing any lightning bolts from above.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
In that context, the "we need more sheep" comment was meant in reaction to your comment that it would be a scary future if kids grew up to be like rue.

But if you want to see it as a knock against believers, go ahead.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Well, your post seemed very anti religious, so I really don't see how you expected me to think you meant anything differently.

Many apologies to Rue here if I made a mistake, and I will admit that I am a bastard if I am mixing up people here, but wasn't it Rue who not only said that we should all have mandatory vaccinations, but also that homosexuality is genetic and now that atheism = free thought.

Ohhh.... wait a minute. I see what's going on here. You aren't pro Government Rue. You're just a die-hard liberal. Well that makes all the difference.

I hate Demoncrats and Repuglicans alike. We can probably agree that George Bush will go down in history as our worst president ever. Anyone who comes in after him is going to look like gold. It's like singing karaokee after the worst singer in the bar goes. You're going to look good no matter how much you suck. Once the Demoncrats get back in they can resume selling our country out behind our backs so we aren't aware of it happening like Clinton did.

Rue stands for everything that is not free thinking. I don't see how believing that your sexuality is predetermined and you should have no input in wheather or not you or your children get vaccinations is any different than Christians who believe in predetermined destiny, other than it's the same approach from an opposite standpoint. That still ain't freedom. I'm willing to bet that you're an anti-smoke health Nazi too Rue. Prove me wrong here.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
"To be a little kid and say there is no God is sad" - no, it was actually quite liberating. It meant I could finally be naughty without fearing any lightning bolts from above.

Well that's fine. I do a lot of shit that would get me in a lot of trouble up there too, so I'd probably be pretty worried too. Sometimes your conscience alone ain't enough to keep people from doing wrong. Some much more wrong than others. I hope your gamble pays off for you. I'm surely not judging you here.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 11:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"And Rue, evolution didn't do anything to make my computer work, unless of course, you're teaching the evolution of the typewriter to the modernday PC."

Electrons - theories. Same for semi-conductors, orbitals, voltages and all the things that make your computer light up and run. The physics behind computers is no less theory than evolution.

I think what you're having a hard time with is when science is turned towards people - as in evolution. Which is an emotional reaction, as people would prefer to feel they're unique and prefectly free, and not governed by physical factors or happenstance.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 11:45 PM

Just tell me that you're an anti-smoke health Nazi Rue!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 8, 2007 11:58 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't care who smokes as long as I don't have to inhale it. Not b/c it's so damaging - both my parents smoked like chimneys and the damage is already done. I just can't abide the smell.

To paraphrase: your freedom to smoke ends at the tip of my nose.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't care who smokes as long as I don't have to inhale it. Not b/c it's so damaging - both my parents smoked like chimneys and the damage is already done. I just can't abide the smell.

To paraphrase: your freedom to smoke ends at the tip of my nose.

I really don't have any problem with that reply Rue. The smell is a much better reason to me than hearing that I'm killing you. My brother doesn't smoke yet he fights for smokers rights.

I dont' have a problem with the scene here at work. We have a smoke room and it's well ventilated. Contrary to non-smoker's beliefs, we don't smoke cigarettes to annoy non smokers. I think it's rediculous that many laws are being passed that don't allow somebody to smoke even in a smoke room in a building and even more outrageous that they have to walk out in the middle of the street because other laws say you can't smoke within 15 feet of a building. Especially when it's 10 degrees below like it is here now.

I have a problem with them telling us that we can't smoke in bars and I'm kind of torn on the resturants. I believe that this is just Big Gov coming into peoples businesses and telling them how to run them. Hell...even being a smoker I've entertained ideas of opening up a non-smoking club in downtown Milwaukee. I think I'd make a fortune off of it even while I have to duck outside of my own club to have a cigarette. I feel here that the market should decide. There would be smoking and non smoking clubs. It will be just like segregation of whites and blacks back in the day but everyone will be okay with it because everyone wins. They need to keep the hell out of it. 'aint their business, the way I see it.

And the $5, $6 even $10.00 a pack they're charging now due to taxes is a form of minority oppression.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:12 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

I just have one thing to say for now: the government's trying to make us all athiest science-"worshippers"?

Hahahahahahaha!

Okay, funny time over. But, seriously - most people in the government, as most people in the world, follow some religion. They're the last people who would want to get rid of religion - and, in fact, it tends to make people easier to deal with if they're all united in belief. Theocracies were (are there still any left?) beasts of enormous strength. That would have been the second reason Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church.

On an organized level, religion is mostly about power. On a personal level, I find religion to be a much nicer creature - Christians actually following Christ, and the like.

I'll come back to this when I don't have a malfunctioning mouse and have more time.

Rules and voting: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=22892

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 4:33 AM

SAHARA

The thing I like about your posts, Jack, is their consistency. Anyone who doesn't think like you and actually has the audacity to disagree with you even after you've so painstakingly and 'rationally' explained to them how wrong they are is a sheep and a government dupe that can't think for themselves.

Sweet.

Science and religion are not two sides of one coin. They are two very different coins. It's not an either or proposition. I would have no problem with my son learning about religion(s) in school. It just doesn't belong in science class.

And I've run into exponentially more religious people trying to convert me to their way of thinking than atheists.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 9:45 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't believe or disbelieve in evolution or God. It's very possible that either or both or neither was the case. I mentioned this in another thread and was asked, "How can you believe that maybe neither took place?" My answer to that is a resounding OPEN MIND. Maybe we DON'T have ANY of the answers. Anything we've heard about evolution is an educated guess at the very best.

You still haven't answered my question. Either the species we see today were made by god, or they evolved from other species. What other option is there? They just decided to exist one day? And don't give me that crap that maybe we don't have any answers, we have plenty of answers, just read a book on this stuff, or spend one minute on Google. Educated guess at best? So the fossil record is an educated guess? DNA analysis is an educated guess? Observed cases of microevolution are educated guesses?

For somebody who claims to have a "resounding open mind", you sure are closed off to any sort of evidence. Even worse, you seem to fully dismiss the need to accept evolution because you think scientists and "so-called enlightened individuals" are arrogant by telling others evolution is real. How is this a sign of an open mind? Dismissing scientific results out of hand because you don't like the proponents of the idea isn't a virtue. In fact, I think you dismiss most of the accepted results, on most topics, simply because you want to prove how much of an "independent thinker" you are by doing that, and by also constantly feeding us your anti-establishment garbage. This isn't a virtue either.

If you have a "resounding open mind", why don't you accept valid evidence when it's presented to you as valid evidence? Why say evolution shouldn't be taught at schools because you think it's not proven? Why say the children of religious parents shouldn't have to learn about evolution?

It's time to live up to your own hype, dude. At the moment you're just a deeply ignorant person telling everyone he's more open-minded than they are, and your routine is getting old.

EDIT: I see Sahara is already thinking along the same lines as I am.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 9:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
A) It is guaranteed that evolution and science will never be taught to kids in a way where the kids are made to feel pressured that they have to choose one or the other. (God/Religion or Evolution/Science)

Agreed, though I'm fairly sure that the anti-evolution people are worse than the pro-evolution people in this regard.

Quote:
B) God (Allah/Buddah) be taught as a part of Social Studies, or Humanities and be given an equal amount of time devoted as evolution. If there are enough kids from non-christian religions at the school, they should also have time devoted to their religions as well. (We don't need PC laws telling us we need to teach the Koran to Christians and Athiests kids if there aren't any Muslims, and vice versa). The situation at each school will be unique and should be weighed accordingly.

Sort of disagree, number one very few people are forced to take classes that include evolution (I never took biology and never heard the word evolution used in that context in school), and forcing people who take classes that include evolution to take religious classes IMO isn't right. At the same time forcing people who are taking a theology class to take classes in biology to learn about evolution isn't right either.

Number two, Theology classes should include a wide variety of religion, not just because of legal issues (teaching just one religion would be a clear violation of the Constitution), but also because a Theology class should be exactly that, a Theology class, not a Christianity class or an Islam class etc.

Quote:
C) Assholes like Dawkins don't get anymore spotlight. Dawkins is the Jesse Jackson of Evo/God. He exists simply to divide the two, enflame and enrage people and make sensational news stories. He's a big part of the reason why many religious people aren't going to accept evolution in the first place. I don't have a problem with somebody being Athiest. I have a problem with somebody telling everybody else about it and ramming it down their throats

I'll agree with this when I no longer have people insist that I'm not REALLY an atheist, that I don't really MEAN that I don't believe in God, etc. As far as I am concerned he is no worse than the people on the 700 club. Also, he is a scientist who publishes books about evolution, I agree that he should tone down his behavior a bit but his books (Blind Watchmaker, Selfish Gene etc) are highly nformative. I believe that his hard push for atheism hurts the acceptance of his information on evolution, but that's his business and it's his right to voice his opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
I don't think science is creating the showdown. It's the religious folk who say 'my way or the highway.'

This is exactly correct, while recently the situation has changed a little (Dawkins starting his crusade against religion, etc) throughout history Science has existed for the sole purpose of understanding the world, frequently this places it at odds with religion which wants to maintain the status quo (which used to have religion at the forefront of everyones mind). Early evolutionists rarely if ever attempted to use evolution to replace religion, they just observed that evolution happened and disseminated the knowledge. Religious people have been the antagonists throughout the history of evolution, and are usually the ones who insist that evolution is trying to replace religion.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Freedom from God isn't the same thing as freedom of the mind

True, but thinking beyond what you were taught as a child is.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
but wasn't it Rue who not only said that we should all have mandatory vaccinations,

We should, vaccinations keep health care costs down because for a small fee you can avoid a long hospital stay, also the more people who are infected with a disease the more likely that it will mutate into something worse, therefore it's in the best interests of everyone to eliminate disease wenever we can.

Quote:
but also that homosexuality is genetic

The body of evidence to support this is growing, while it is not right to make a sweeping statement right now the evidence that homosexuality is predetermined is certainly around.

Quote:
and now that atheism = free thought.

Believing in religion because you were brought up that way does not equal free thought, most people probably have never actually examined their beliefs, they were brought up religious and they just continue to follow their religion because it is what they have always done. While being an atheist does not automatically mean that you are a free-thinker it certainly is a good indication.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 10:02 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Call it whatever reasoning you'd like Cit. Seeing as how I don't buy into any of it myself, I find the entirety of the evolution argument specious, at best.

No, your reasoning WAS specious, whatever I call it is irrelevant. You said that Darwinian natural selection and a biological learning process are equivalent, and even almost managed to pass it off as a reasonable assertion through word play, despite the fact that that assertion is clearly, to anyone who knows what they're talking about, complete and utter shit. The very definition of specious. Adversely disagreeing with evolution is not a grounds to call it specious reasoning, unless you really don't know what the term specious reasoning means.

Quote:
I'm thinking if I ever do choose to have blind faith in either, I'm going to have to throw my chips in with the big guy up there because being wrong on that decision could mean losing a lot, while being wrong about evolution isn't going to effect me one way or the other.

Logical fallacy number one

Quote:
I'm quite impressed that with everything I said in that post, that this is all you had anything to say about. I must be getting better at this debate thing.

And logical fallacy number two.

Because I have not commented on every single bit of flawed reasoning in your post does not mean that you're reasoning is not flawed. Nor, as I suspect you attempt to imply, does the fact that I didn't reply blow by blow to every word in your post mean that anything I have to say on your post is irrelevant. Unless you're also willing to admit that nothing you say should be listened too or has any relevance whatsoever because you haven't replied to every word myself and every other poster here has ever seen fit too cast in to the virtual void.

It's fairly obvious you're not getting better at 'this debate thing' if anything it seems you're getting worse.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 10:04 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Yeah, well if I learn math, that information isn't going to change before I die.

It would if somebody could prove that 1+1=3.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
This whole debate would be nullified in my eyes if the following conditions were met. I don't think they're all that unreasonable.

A) It is guaranteed that evolution and science will never be taught to kids in a way where the kids are made to feel pressured that they have to choose one or the other. (God/Religion or Evolution/Science)

B) God (Allah/Buddah) be taught as a part of Social Studies, or Humanities and be given an equal amount of time devoted as evolution. If there are enough kids from non-christian religions at the school, they should also have time devoted to their religions as well. (We don't need PC laws telling us we need to teach the Koran to Christians and Athiests kids if there aren't any Muslims, and vice versa). The situation at each school will be unique and should be weighed accordingly.

In my experience, the ones doing the pressuring are conservative religious types. Besides, just because one is taught that evolution or creation are fact doesn’t mean they’ll accept it – it’s a personal decision that I don’t even think parents should be involved in.

(As an aside - I wish parents didn’t raise their children according to their religious or non-religious beliefs. I don’t mind philosophy, but having babies baptized and dragging four-year-olds to Sunday school bothers me.)

B) Actually, it’s an interesting thing – in my geography class last year, we learned about the major religions of each region (Hinduism and Buddhism for India; Christianity, Islam, and Jewish for other places) and how those beliefs helped to shape the cultures. Granted, it wasn’t a very good lesson, and I wish there was a theism class taught in public schools as well, but it is out there.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And the $5, $6 even $10.00 a pack they're charging now due to taxes is a form of minority oppression.

It's easier than outlawing cigarettes, and everybody involved in the decision makes a profit from it. Why wouldn't they charge so much?

Cigarette smoke is another form of air pollution. The smell gives me a headache, and I don't like breathing it in anymore than engine exhaust; but, banning people from smoking in their own homes? That’s something the neighbors, or the building owners, should take care of.

And, we expose ourselves to things equally as harmful all the time, from the foods we eat to the cars we drive. People seem to be too caught up in extending their life spans to actually live.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 10:12 AM

SAHARA

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

For somebody who claims to have a "resounding open mind", you sure are ignorant when it comes to any sort of evidence.

Yes, for such a "resounding open mind" things do seem to bounce off of it quite resoundingly. It's almost fun to throw things at it, just to hear them bounce off.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 12:41 PM

BATTLESTARMINNESOTIA

Mostly I wanted to compliment AnthonyT for is good thread and thoughtful (and glaringly compassionate) comment about teaching more--not less--in school

And Kudos to MRID for his excellent everview of evolution.

Personally, It's my opinion that the evolution war has been soundly won, and what we've seen with Intelligent Design "theory" and others is the intellectual equivalence of an insurgency--fanatical, scary, and almost impossible to stamp out. But that's okay.

The thing is that ID doesn't really DO anything besides validate a religious belief system. It doesn't really help explain life processes any better. So it's about protecting people's feelings, and that is for sure NOT science.

Truth be told, its the realm of COSMOLOGY--not biology--that really should be where God or a Designer is most aptly placed. Even Cosmologists will say they have now idea what "banged" the Big Bang. They have a few ideas but they are, like God, unprovable.

BSG-38 Minnesotia

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:24 PM

theres nothing scientific about speculation, especially when its imposed as truth. thats what evolution is.

interestingly, i watched this video of a creation/evolution debate, and suprisingly the evolutionist was inequipped to refute the so called 'scientific evidence', that life simply COULD NOT HAVE evolved on its own from nothing. maybe some of you around here can answer the questions that this particular evolutionist couldnt

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BattlestarMinnesotia:

Personally, It's my opinion that the evolution war has been soundly won, and what we've seen with Intelligent Design "theory" and others is the intellectual equivalence of an insurgency--fanatical, scary, and almost impossible to stamp out. But that's okay.

whats ironic is there are a million things science doesnt know about our origins, but the junk theories that fill in the blanks are taken as gospel fact among you all... and then you claim this speculation, frankly philosophy, is hard science. its all just a little hypocritical to me.. if science is about what is proven and observable, then that leaves almost all of our origins in the 'theoretical' catagory.. not something you can flaunt as "proof"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:32 PM

dbl post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
interestingly, i watched this video of a creation/evolution debate, and suprisingly the evolutionist was inequipped to refute the so called 'scientific evidence', that life simply COULD NOT HAVE evolved on its own from nothing. maybe some of you around here can answer the questions that this particular evolutionist couldnt

Evolution was never meant to explain the origin of LIFE but rather the Origin Of Species. Neither Darwin nor anyone with a firm grasp of evolution claim that evolution explains how life originated, there are many plausible theories around such as proteins forming into self replicating groups or RNA strands mutating into self-replicating formats, but no one knows for sure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:42 PM

CITIZEN

anti "I know nothing about science yet I feel justified telling people what is and what is not scientific" mason:
The bible is metaphorical you arse, get over it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 1:52 PM

just pointing out the double standard Citizen- its only science when it proves your theory, if it somehow suggests otherwise it gets thrown away as "religious dogma". i didnt hear any answeres to his questions, nothin but a lot of theoretical garbage- no direct scientic rebuttals. maybe he was a bad candidate to present the strictly evolutionist viewpoint, but i would like to have seen the counter evidence

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 9, 2007 2:09 PM