Quote:

---

No, you're not pointing out the double standard.

---

Quote:

---

You WANT it to be a double standard because that validates your position so that's what you see, but it's not there.

---

Quote:

---

Science is based on evidence, you come up with a theory then test it.

---

Quote:

---

All this BS about ID and creationism being theories is merely the desperate straw grabbing by people who aren't content with religion filling it's niche but want to shoe horn it into everyone elses too.

---

Quote:

---

all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed, which if it is true, merely serves as a premise to scientific discovery, it doesnt obstruct it in anyway

---

Quote:

---

Fredgiblet-
Once again, evolution does not cover abiogenesis,

---

Quote:

---

evolution does not cover the origins of the universe, hence the reality of evolution does not invalidate belief in a supreme being.

---

Quote:

---

Additonally there's a good chance that the evolutionist thought that the debate would be focsued on evolution, which as i just stated DOES NOT COVER THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Fredgiblet-
Once again, evolution does not cover abiogenesis,

---

but most people assume it as a pretext to evolution, despite the lack of varafiable, reproduceable evidence to confirm its factuality. textbooks teach it right alongside evolution, as the proof of our origins, so its still a fundemental question, and seems to be essential to the claims that species such as Man cross evolved and mutated over billions of years, beginning as amino acids and proteins

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

evolution does not cover the origins of the universe, hence the reality of evolution does not invalidate belief in a supreme being.

---

ok.. then its the evolutionists themselves who 'just know' that GOd does not exist. i believe God exists, but i cant prove it .. so ill admit its im acting on faith(although IMO the signs of intelligent design are there). when some scientist claims to know the whole truth of the matter, from the big bang to our current state, and states immutably 'there is no God', thats a bit different i think

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Additonally there's a good chance that the evolutionist thought that the debate would be focsued on evolution, which as i just stated DOES NOT COVER THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

---

he didnt have an answer about the neccessary DNA changes for an ape to become a human.. which is part of evolution. we dont have an answer, because theres no scientific data that proves that this occurred, its speculation and theory, so i dont see how it can be trumpeted as established fact

---

Quote:

---

"all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
So the feeling that I am getting from this complaint is that you don't like it when people state that they have beliefs that don't match up with yours?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

"all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed"

---

Is that what Intelligent Design is?

I agree. Everything seems to be intelligently designed. Not just biologically, but physically too.

I can never get over how well everything works. The whole universe. It's amazing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
As for physics, if the physical world was unfit for the development of life then we wouldn't be here, the reason it seems to us that it is designed perfectly is because as far as we can tell no other set up will work. There is no reason to believe that a different combination of physical forces would not produce a stable universe that functions just as well as this one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Sooooooooo........

Everybody bashes me while I'm gone, but has nothing to say while I'm here.... right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm wondering why I'm getting all the shit about not being open minded here...

Bottom line is that the science people are on the attack.

---

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:

Just one thought on one of your posts:

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.

---

I agree completely with you here, but why do I have a suspicion that that was meant as a jab at me?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
It was meant as a jab at anyone who blindly follows what they were taught as a child simply because they think it's the "right" way to think. If you fall into that category...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I haven't come at all of the Dawkin supporters with an outrageously religious wrath either, just a big fuck you to anyone who will come out and try to make someone believe that there is no God because science says so.

---

Quote:

---

I think several posts have been twisted around on me here while I was gone and unable to defend myself.

---

Quote:

---

And Cit.. I happen to know a lot about evolution.

---

Quote:

---

Bottom line is that the science people are on the attack. They want it all and they won't stop until they get it.

---

Quote:

---

I see no difference between what the science people have done to religion and what the smoke Nazis have done to smokers.

---

Quote:

---

I really don't know why everything has to be one way or the other, especially considering that most of us are torn on issues and don't agree.

---

Quote:

---

I'm sure there is a median that we can find that would make both parties happy, but unless attitudes like the ones in here change, that will never happen.

---

Quote:

---

Just for the record: Not sure what it means, but as far as what I've seen on this thread, the religious people have been the most tolerant of the opposing views hands down. This being an overall generalization. There are people on both sides who are content to live in co-existance with one another.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
no one knows for sure the origins of life on earth, because the data is not conclusive. there is a portion of the field who leave ID open to possibility, because the evidence isnt as cut and dry as you would like to believe Citizen. that seems to me to be a double standard- if it fits your theory, its fact, its proof.. if it suggests otherwise, or casts doubt on any of your prior beliefs, you automatically form a bias against it. i dont deny that species evolve, but i havent seen the 'proof' that Man came from ape millions of years ago.. because it hasnt been proven

---

Quote:

---

and you apparently dont want to consider ID a possibility, that seems to be your lens.. so i could easily say the same for you. ill admit, i want a GOd to exist, and leave that possibility open, based on what i consider to be a compelling lack of evidence for the 'Golem' concept

---

Quote:

---

so what can you prove happened billions of years ago? that does not fit into the category of science.. that is as much philosophy as religion is

---

Quote:

---

all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed, which if it is true, merely serves as a premise to scientific discovery, it doesnt obstruct it in anyway

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:Science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of God, never has and never will. The accusation that science is attacking god is entirely in the minds of the religious who think they're religion must influence all walks of life. I suppose by doing you're own thing when another group is trying to force you otherwise that other group may see that as an attack.

---

Quote:

---

So how come you can't tell the very basic difference between Darwinian natural selection and a biological learning process......

---

Quote:

---

Get what? Be left alone, because that's it. Science has never once, not ONCE attacked religion, it's all come from the other side. That's rare, in fact it's the only time I can ever think that one side is entirely responsible for the conflict.

---

Quote:

---

Science IS NOT attacking religion, science is under attack, and is defending itself. It's a credit to science that it doesn't return the attack where religion lives.

---

Quote:

---

Science has done nothing NOTHING to religion. Never has never will. Science has nothing to say on the subjects of morality, spirituality or God. Those are the soul purviews of religion. The conflict is where religion doesn't just want it's house, it wants sciences too, and science not giving that up and walking away is portrayed as an attack. Yes I believe the term Nazi is very apt here, just not in the way you used it.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, there is and it's exactly what WE want. Religion deals with matters of spirituality, science with the material world. If you want to believe God created the universe, fine, many scientists believe the same thing, but such a concept is not science and has no place within. Take a look at the debate instead of just assuming it science that's doing all the attacking, it's religion trying to shoehorn itself in too science, not the other way around.

---

Quote:

---

BY 6SJ: Just for the record: Not sure what it means, but as far as what I've seen on this thread, the religious people have been the most tolerant of the opposing views hands down. This being an overall generalization. There are people on both sides who are content to live in co-existance with one another
--------------
BY CITIZEN: Well lets slip right by the fact that this is a statement with little basis in reality and straight to a possible explanation why those on sciences side tend to get annoyed.

---

Quote:

---

We say "this is the evidence for evolution.Instead of refuting that evidence with rationalisations, the scientific way of doing things they say "there's no evidence lalalala" *fingers in ears* and carry on making the same arguments that have been soundly refuted over and over and over again.

---

Quote:

---

The ID vs Evolution thing IS NOT a debate, if only it were it would be long dead and buried and religion would be doing it's thing and science would likewise. ID is just something people can say over and over and over again in the hope that people will start to think "hey, we hear a lot about this ID thing, maybe there's something to it!" It's not a argument, it's a tactic, and the aim is not truth, but the eradication of science and the reaffirmation of religion at the top of the pecking order.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
That's about it man. Maybe we can see a bit more eye to eye here now.

---

Quote:

---

Except.... this is one more reason that Dawkins has got to go, or at least there needs to be a predominant religious scientist (you've all said they're out there) giving him a run for his money. Come on Science... Do a little PR for Christ's sake.... lol

---

Quote:

---

After the $1.25 per pack raise that we're going to have here in the next couple of months I view it as basically I just got fined an extra $425.00, or I took a $425.00 pay cut this year while my non-smoking coworkers didn't.

---

Quote:

---

Well, I'm not convinced that God does not have a place in Science yet.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not convinced that Science will not someday disprove God's existance either.

---

Quote:

---

Well, after I got beat down like Rodney King today, I have to stand firmly behind my original statement here. Sorry man. Didn't see any shit like that being flung Scienceside.

---

Quote:

---

In all fairness Cit, the deck is seriously stacked in Science's favor here. You know that to be true.

---

Quote:

---

There is absolutely no way for Religion to fight Science because as you've said before, they basically exist on two very seperate plains.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
"God does not play dice with the Universe". Einstein believed in a God like concept, even if it wasn't a personable one like that of Christianity.

Dawkins arguments against religion are founded in Atheism, not science.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

"all we are saying is that things appear to have been intelligently designed"

---

Is that what Intelligent Design is?

I agree. Everything seems to be intelligently designed. Not just biologically, but physically too.

I can never get over how well everything works. The whole universe. It's amazing.

---

Ever had lower back pain? Broken your tailbone? Had your tonsils removed? Had your appendix removed? Humans alone are full of flaws that a basic engineering degree or even just a little common sense would have cleaned out, that doesn't seem too intelligent to me. On the other hand evolution predicts that there will be leftovers in our bodies of formerly useful things, as long as the leftover is not too disadvantageuos it won't be selected out, thus we have tailbones to break. I would think that just about any engineering or pre-med student would tell us that whoever designed the human body must have not really thought it through.

As for physics, if the physical world was unfit for the development of life then we wouldn't be here, the reason it seems to us that it is designed perfectly is because as far as we can tell no other set up will work. There is no reason to believe that a different combination of physical forces would not produce a stable universe that functions just as well as this one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Ever had lower back pain? Broken your tailbone? Had your tonsils removed? Had your appendix removed? Humans alone are full of flaws that a basic engineering degree or even just a little common sense would have cleaned out, that doesn't seem too intelligent to me. On the other hand evolution predicts that there will be leftovers in our bodies of formerly useful things, as long as the leftover is not too disadvantageuos it won't be selected out, thus we have tailbones to break. I would think that just about any engineering or pre-med student would tell us that whoever designed the human body must have not really thought it through.

As for physics, if the physical world was unfit for the development of life then we wouldn't be here, the reason it seems to us that it is designed perfectly is because as far as we can tell no other set up will work. There is no reason to believe that a different combination of physical forces would not produce a stable universe that functions just as well as this one.

---

Well, seems to me that the evolutionary process which appears to be shrinking tailbones and discarding appendixes is pretty intelligent, too. I mean, you did say that these things had been reduced to a scale where they were no longer a large-scale disadvantage anymore? And all in a system that changes itself over time to suit the survival needs of the day? That's super intelligent.

---

Quote:

---

Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm kinda thinking somebody like you who can call him out on his unprofessional Atheism. Maybe let him know that he's only making a bad situation worse for everyone on all sides.

---

Quote:

---

Aside from a comedian, I can't think of another profession where somebody could use their Atheism, or any religion for that matter, as a platform without getting their walking papers by the end of the week.

---

Quote:

---

a) it costs just as much in health care, if not more because a larger percent of the world populace is overweight than addicted to smoking and

---

Quote:

---

You've stated that quite planely, and that may be the basis of Scientific theory even, but I would think that it would be in Science's nature to keep an open mind and consider possible outside influences in the future, even something as outrageous as Divine Intervention.... Rapture, maybe?

---

Quote:

---

Or would an event such as these destroy Science?

---

Quote:

---

Well it's obvious that I'm no scientist, and I have conceded quite a bit to you today, which I rarely do, but I can't take your word on this one either. Knowing what we know about the Universe today such a task would seem impossible, but not having a scientifically wired mind myself, I'm of the belief that anything could happen today or tomorrow or at any time in the future which would change our minds and even our Science. Don't the laws and theories change quite often as we make new discoveries? Haven't there been new discoveries made quite often that would have, at one point in the past, seemed impossible with what we used to have to work with?

---

Quote:

---

Somehow I'm thinking that even if that were to happen I'd still be paying 3 times what I did for smokes when I started 9 years ago.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Now that we have medicine, and a bajillion ways to correct anything that goes wrong... does that mean that human beings will be at an evolutionary standstill? You know, since there's no more natural selection?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Exactly, there is only two possible outcomes to this, either Science 'wins' and religion leaves science alone and goes back to what it does best, or religion 'wins' and we all lose and go back to the dark ages.

---

Or there's the third option where nobody wins or loses and everyone leaves each other to their own business.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TrenchMonkey:
1)Genetic Drift.

2)Natural Selection.

3)Artificial Selection.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I think future evolution of the Human race will be virtual rather than genetic. I think we'll gradually become closer and closer with our technology until we've got all manner of computerised enhancements, from memory to processing speed (allowing us to think faster). In the future I think we'll probably find a large percentage of people spending their entire lives in artificial enviroments, not just interacting with the computer like today, but litterally living in it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:
One day we'll have people going around saying "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" and literally mean it!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:
One day we'll have people going around saying "I'm a PC" and "I'm a Mac" and literally mean it!

---

That's somewhat distubing.

Hi Trev, what's new?
Me, actually, just got the latest MS upgrade, upgraded my software to HumnDows 2310, it's really great all my options have pretty coloured buttons an- -This Human has experienced a fatal exception at memory unit 0xf99DDFFAB24345G and will be shutdown-

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
Citizen to be fair, ID is science if you can prove that the archetype of a gene cannot be reduced beyond a certain point(which is what the Creationist claims in the video i posted). it wouldnt be religious to say that the basis for the DNA, or the programming, had to come from somewhere before it was able to evolve.. if it can be proven

---

Quote:

---

otherwise, i am fine with ID being left out of hard physical scientific debate..

---

Quote:

---

but lets restrict science to the same guidelines then aswell. in the same way that some of you feel religion encroaches on science, we feel that science is encroaching on religion, when it makes a claims about the lack of a GOd, that cant be substantiated.

---

Quote:

---

which i hear quite a lot. we cant prove GOd exists, but humanity has been predisposed to religious since the beginning of known history, so i believe its not out of line to leave the ID possibility open, if the data suggests it

---

Quote:

---

Citizen- Yes if the existence of an intelligent designer could be proven or disproven then ID would be Science, since it can't the point is moot, no matter how you cut it.

---

Quote:

---

No, religion IS encroaching on science, we don't just feel it is, it is.

---

Quote:

---

That is, for a start, what ID is all about, trying to get God into science, baby steps, today it's an intelligent creator tomorrow it's "well as an astrophysicist I can confirm that science has verified the literal creation in the bible as fact, and we should burn the non-believer".

---

Quote:

---

Science has not once, not ONCE said one word on the existence or non-existence of God.

---

Quote:

---

If you 'feel' otherwise please quote us the 'There is no God theory'. Science already keeps out of Religions business, if you feel otherwise maybe you should examine why that is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Really curious what someone like Antimason has to say about it...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Antimason:
but how do you know it cant be? no offense, but that sounds more like your own personal opinion then an empirical truth. if God does exist, then its possible we might have evidence of this within DNA itself(if its true that you cant backward devolve a sequence of DNA beyond a certain point, then that would constitute evidence that DNA itself coudlnt evolve, but possibly had an intelligent driver behind it)

---

Quote:

---

what are we holding science back from, really? it hasnt stopped academia in the slightest from perpetuating their scientific discoveries.

---

Quote:

---

if we ARE any kind of obstacle, its because a lot of people in the field make these bold claims to have disproven the existence of God..

---

Quote:

---

and yet youll say yourself that science doesnt have an opinion either way.. so how is that?

---

Quote:

---

isnt that an encroachment on religion?

---

Quote:

---

you can say what you want, but i have no dispute with science itself, my problem is with evolutionary theory being touted as 100% unquestionably proven, and is then used to illegitimize religion.

---

Quote:

---

there are a lot of peices of evolutionary theory, especially in reference to immeasurable periods of time, that cannot be proven... so whether these current theories are right or wrong, they are only 'beliefs' until they can be substantiated

---

Quote:

---

ID is just an alternative position to take.. one that doesnt include life arising on its own.

---

Quote:

---

no one here has witnessed abiogenesis, and the alleged evolution from proteins to fully functional beings..

---

Quote:

---

if science is what is seen and recordable, then a lot of so-called science today is just hypothesis and philosophy.

---

Quote:

---

science itself no.. scientists, yes; thats the distinction im making

---

Quote:

---

the theory of abiogenesis is just like the gnostic/kabbalist myth of the Golem(im sorry if you dont want to hear it)

---

Quote:

---

or life springing from non-living matter.

---

Quote:

---

if it cant be proven, then that is a belief(in this case an actual religion) being taught as science.

---

Quote:

---

Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory.

---

Quote:

---

i dont expect you to agree with me, but youd be suprised to find that Masonry in many ways shares the same philosophy as the abiogenesis and evolutionary theories

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

What I think is that you don't like masons, you don't like science, and as a schizotypal conspiracy theorist that means they both must be intimately connected and somehow responsible for anything that goes wrong in your life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
What I think is that you don't like masons, you don't like science, and as a schizotypal conspiracy theorist that means they both must be intimately connected and somehow responsible for anything that goes wrong in your life.

---

youre entitled to your opinion, although you dont know me personally. all i ever asked was for people to look into secret societies like the masons, since its typically not even mentioned... once you do, you cant deny the 'conspiracies', its all well documented. that doesnt make me schizophrenic. despite what you say i dont hate science, i hate unproven science sold as fact

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
despite what you say i dont hate science, i hate unproven science sold as fact

---

Quote:

---

Fredgiblet-
So you don't like evolution, which has mountains of studies and over a century of attempts to disprove it, yet you like ID which has neither?

---

Quote:

---

The groups that advocate ID do no original research and contribute nothing to the repositories of human knowledge,

---

Quote:

---

yet you prefer it over evolution which is integral to our understanding of the world of biology and crucial to the understanding of countless genentic diseases? Just wondering.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:


Second, Mason...I'm trying (and failing) to think of a delicate way to put this but when you constantly bring up secret societies in posts that have nothing to do with them it just makes you sound batshit crazy,

---

Quote:

---

so just as a little advice I think people will take you more seriously the less you sound like PirateNews. I hope that wasn't too offensive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Fredgiblet-
So you don't like evolution, which has mountains of studies and over a century of attempts to disprove it, yet you like ID which has neither?

---

i believe species evolve, but i am skeptical of carbon dating techiniques, geological dating methods,

---

Quote:

---

and abiogenesis..

---

Quote:

---

so im not willing to make the leap that human beings over millions of years evolved from apes

---

Quote:

---

which arose from Millers primordial soup.

---

Quote:

---

whether you deem me an idiot or not(noting the condescension), this is my opinion

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The groups that advocate ID do no original research and contribute nothing to the repositories of human knowledge,

---

spoken like a true omniscient being

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

yet you prefer it over evolution which is integral to our understanding of the world of biology and crucial to the understanding of countless genentic diseases? Just wondering.

---

yep. i dont dispute what is observable and verifiable... but people pretend like they watched man evolve personally over millions of years, and there is simply not enough evidence to make that statement conclusively

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:


Second, Mason...I'm trying (and failing) to think of a delicate way to put this but when you constantly bring up secret societies in posts that have nothing to do with them it just makes you sound batshit crazy,

---

first off, what would you know about secret societies?

---

Quote:

---

youve probably never even looked into the area-

---

Quote:

---

but coming from the perspective of a Creationist, the fact that it was secret societies that originated the concept of evolution prior to Darwin is significant( especially when it shares Luciferian/Kabbalistic/gnostic archetypes).

---

Quote:

---

besides in this whole thread i barely even mentioned the subject(secret societies), i just offered an opinion that none of you would likely ever hear, consider, or tolerate otherwise

---

Quote:

---

im honostly a little baffled that people are so hostile towards these ideas though.. is this the wrong forum to contribute to?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

so just as a little advice I think people will take you more seriously the less you sound like PirateNews. I hope that wasn't too offensive.

---

yah.. your a will(woe)fully ignorant, physchotic bible thumper.. 'no offense'.

---