some Athiests use Evolution to prove there is no God

That would be a faulty argument. The most evolution could do is say the account of creation of the world of many religions is not literal, and you could prove that with geology and astronomy alone in the case of the Bible. This is a far cry from "proving" there is no god.

Even if abiogenesis revealed the bio-chemical mechanisms by which the first cellular organisms came into being from non-living matter, who could say there is no god that made this possible?

tryptik
Careful there, boy, that's sounding a lot like a species selection argument.

And the fundmentalists keep using neologisms like "evolutionism," or "Darwinism"... claim that atheism is a religion. It's like a form of schizophrenia, where the afflicted lapse into "word salad" -- words and parts of words that are assembled pretty much at random, to provide a meaning known only to the schizophrenic.

/Ron Hubbard LOVED neologisms.
//and how about those faithful that practice "speaking in tongues"?

Hey, I like neologisms ... like, "saladified", meaning "having turned into a salad". See? They're fun.

Actually evolution doesn't say a thing about religion, morality or ethics. It simply describes a biological process. People that use evolution to "prove" there is not God or try to build a moral code out of it are just as bad as creationists.

Evolution cannot prove that there is a God or there isn't one, it doesn't deal with the issue at all. Proof of God is a metaphysical arguement not a scientific one. Sheesh.

orion_blastar:

The main problem that Christians have is that some Athiests use Evolution to prove there is no God, and no soul or spirit in living things, and try to teach that in a classroom.

RIGGGHHHT.

The main problem that Christians have is they forgot to clean the sand out first.

hailstorm:

I found one:

Evolution is the root of atheism, of communism, nazism, behaviorism, racism, economic imperialism, militarism, libertinism, anarchism, and all manner of anti-Christian systems of belief and practice.

Henry M. Morris

And that's one of the stupidest things you'll read on Fark.com today, or any other day.

UTAH: TEACH THE CONTROVERSY! You've got to let the students know what the debate is about.

IvyMike:

UTAH: TEACH THE CONTROVERSY! You've got to let the students know what the debate is about.


"George W Bush said that Gould was wrong because of irreducible complexity. "

ATTENTION ORION_BLASTAR

ATHEISM IS A LACK OF RELIGION, NOT A RELIGION.

ALSO, ADAM AND EVE IS AS TRUE AS TITANS AND ZEUS.

Evolution is the root of atheism, of communism, nazism, behaviorism, racism, economic imperialism, militarism, libertinism, anarchism, and all manner of anti-Christian systems of belief and practice.

Wouldn't "sin" be the root of all of that?

"Many great thinkers are certain that evolution is completely rubbish. "

"Many more truly great thinkers know that Evolution is a viable theory. And they get all the chicks, too."

"You don't understand the history of psychologism. I do."

- channeling Tom Cruise

Pochas: ALSO, ADAM AND EVE IS AS TRUE AS TITANS AND ZEUS.


I read that as Tits and Zeus.

tryptik: "You don't understand the history of psychologism. I do."


Evolution can't explain art.

Smallberries

Evolution can't explain art.

I.D. can't explain the origin of God.

Evolution can't explain art.

Neither can you.

It also can't explain differential equations, the rules of English grammer or the proper way to change one's oil.

In other news, the Theory of Gravitation was found to be unable to explain how air fresheners work, nor was it able find my car keys.

Is there a point in all of this?

orion_blastar: Some Athiests are misusing Evolution to support their religion.

Athiests don't have a religion, that's the whole point of the word. Unless you are one of those people that stretch the definition of the word beyond all usefulness. You might as well claim that the Yankees are a religious organization, or Krispy Kreme is a religious organization, or that Playboy is a religious organization. Ok, maybe that last suggest wasn't that crazy.

I can explain art: People high on drugs with too much time on their hands.

Dude, don't forget the naked chicks.

SkinnyHead:

If atheist liberals had their way, they would ban Isaac Newton from the classroom. He wrote:

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." -- Isaac Newton, General Scholium

"The Being which had contrived all this so perfectly had to be a supremely intelligent Mechanick."
-- Isaac Newton, Principia

No, atheist liberals wouldn't ban Newtonian physics from the classroom cause we know you're supposed to separate the man's beliefs from the discoveries they make. Failure to do so would be a logical fallacy, I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out which one.

ImJustaTroll is in fact just a troll.

Tom Tomorrow at least illustrates a point, pointedly. Most of the time, it makes excellent arguments too. You just jump on it for being an eye-catching cartoon popping out amongst the visually-drab text blocks, thus stealing thunder; for being, most of the time, unassailably correct; and, finally, for opposing your own viewpoint. Regardless of how much thought it takes for the actual submitter-of-the-moment, the content of the cartoon speaks for itself.

The baby-official-seal people are just name-callers. Not in the same class.

Now GoA,T.

"If atheist liberals had their way, they would ban Isaac Newton from the classroom."

Yes and then finally we'll all be free of his stupid gravity.

Newton's contribution wasn't his faith it was his science. Science class is for science, not for detailing the religous beliefs of scientist.

If atheist liberals had their way, they would ban Isaac Newton from the classroom.

What about atheist conservatives?

"What about atheist conservatives?"

I don't know, I guess just call Ron Reagan Jr and ask him.

I wish there were a nice neat word to describe what I am.

An Atheist believes that the question has been settled, and that the answer is that there are no gods.

An Agnostic believes that the question is still up in the air.

I have a different approach.

Plenty of people have now said "A god exists", or "Gods exist". Yet, no two people have ever agreed upon what part of reality this concept of god(s) is supposed to compare to, how it's supposed to compare, or given any consistent definition of what these god(s) are supposed to be.

I could treat these arbitrary assertions of gods as true, but that would mean making myself a sucker. I could treat them as false, but I would be judging them without evidence.

The only other possibility is the assertion of the god-concept is made without definition or evidence, and is therefore meaningless.

In short, the question has never properly been asked.

Before gods were ever mentioned to me, I wasn't a theist, an atheist or an agnostic. Those words didn't mean anything to me. They still don't.

SkinnyHead:

Why are we supposed to separate the man's beliefs from his discoveries?

Because that's science.

Newton himself did not see the two as separate. He believed that the order to the universe that he discovered through laws of physics was proof of intelligent design. Why must we keep that from school kids?

Cause it's not science. Is that really that hard for you to understand?

"Why are we supposed to separate the man's beliefs from his discoveries? Newton himself did not see the two as separate. He believed that the order to the universe that he discovered through laws of physics was proof of intelligent design. Why must we keep that from school kids?"

Because they aren't "proof." There is no scientific equation for the proof of God. And for that matter not a whole lot of Newton's science has held up over time, the man wrote extensively on alchemy. Is that the proof of ID you mean?


There is a place for teaching kids about God, its called Church. A science class is not the place for theology, not because it pushing religion on kids, but because it detracts from the teaching of science.

Anagrammer:

An Atheist believes that the question has been settled, and that the answer is that there are no gods.

An Agnostic believes that the question is still up in the air.

That's not quite true. Atheists don't believe in gods because there is a lack of evidence. Not all say there is definitely no god. Agnostics don't believe you can ever know if gods exist or not.

SkinnyHead:

Why are we supposed to separate the man's beliefs from his discoveries? Newton himself did not see the two as separate. He believed that the order to the universe that he discovered through laws of physics was proof of intelligent design. Why must we keep that from school kids?

You do realize that in his own private letters and notes Newton denied the divinity of jeebus don't you?

Also you may want to realize that Newton's ideas are only used as basic approximations. Basic being a relative term here of course.

Also please show me one instance where somebody has asked to have Newtonian physics or Calculus removed from the classroom on the grounds that he was religious/spiritual.

SkinnyHead: Why are we supposed to separate the man's beliefs from his discoveries? Newton himself did not see the two as separate. He believed that the order to the universe that he discovered through laws of physics was proof of intelligent design. Why must we keep that from school kids?

isaac newton also wasted a large portion of both his life...and his intelligence...in the pursuit of alchemy.

why must we keep that from the school kids? teach the alchemist controversy!

GoSurfing

My apolgoies, then, I misread your post.

Anagrammer:

An Atheist believes that the question has been settled, and that the answer is that there are no gods.

Slightly off there. An atheist just plain has no supernatural belief. That is a subtle difference many people don't get. When a person speaks of gods, spirits, etc. They may as well be speaking gibberish or some unknown language to me. I have no concept of what they mean. If they can define it then I may be able to make sense and then have an opinion about it but they have never been able to do that.

Well crap if I had read the last of your post .... Now I think that you have stated the true definition of atheism, one who holds no theistic belief.

Weaver95, you're like the Bruce Vilanch of the right wing aren't you? You got all these one liners that seem funny to you and your friends, but don't alway make sense in context.

Besides shouldn't you be out hunting the real Mexican terrorist orginization?

A great example is that a newborn child is an atheist. The point at which they are potentially no longer an atheist comes sometime after language/communication skills are developed.

Boy, am I ever glad I didn't waste any time on this thread!

I am sure there are many others that feel the same way.

Man, Kansas, seriously....


If Utah is making you look bad, that just sucks.

Weaver95:

Boy, am I ever glad I didn't waste any time on this thread! The Daily Kos kids really went overboard making fools of themselves, that's for sure.


Boy, I agree! I'm glad you didn't waste much of my time with more foolish off-topic posts that miss or misinterpret the point. Cause you really come off as an idiot on this topic even with the slight amount of posting today. This is about science education. It's only political when one set of politicans throws out their own education to pander to ignorant extremists with unAmerican agendas.

mbrother: I'm glad you didn't waste much of my time with more foolish off-topic posts that miss or misinterpret the point.

hey now...this thread could really use some ACLU bashing or boy scout references.

maybe even a eviro-terrorist tangent or two.

openfry

I've made mormons cry exposing flaws in their theological debates. But at the end of the day the easiest way to deal with them is to point out that their entire religion is founded by a mass muderer, who slept with his cousin, and assaulted and killed innocent men women and children while claiming to be a prophet.

I mean it's nice that mormons are so cheeful and all... but honestly their religion is well beyond absurd. They can't even make an argument for it in the face of it's historical origins.

I know you were trolling so I'll be tactful and brief.

What you posted has to be one of the dumbest and most ignorant things I've ever read.

heap: hey now...this thread could really use some ACLU bashing or boy scout references.

Well Weaver did give us the notion that the science advocates were operating just like Joe McCarthy.

No one is Christian bashing here. It's ignorance bashing.

"maybe even a eviro-terrorist tangent or two."

If we don't cut down all the trees then the enviro-terrorist win!

Sorry, my heart just isn't into it, I'm too worn out from praying to the FSM for Omarion all day.

I just have one thing to say: All Hail Discordia!


/fnord

Jesus Saves
and only takes half damage


/saw this on a bumper sticker today

Rio_Yeti

Just awesome :)