Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Florida schools to add the phrase "scientific theory of" before evolution, the Big Bang, and the Female Orgasm   (blogs.orlandosentinel.com) divider line 760
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

6433 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2008 at 8:38 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



760 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-15 11:05:18 PM  
Mija: It IS theory no matter matter how much your worship science. Get over it.

Yes it is a theory.
And yes, you don't know what the word means.

Don't get over it. Get educated.
 
2008-02-15 11:06:35 PM  
I believe in God.

I also believe in science.

Science is simply the language of God.
 
2008-02-15 11:06:51 PM  
manimal2878: Shut up you stupid farking moron.

No. No. No.

Let him talk more and more. He is making his side look bad.
 
2008-02-15 11:07:02 PM  
improvius: shocker66s: improvius: shocker66s: improvius: aglassonion: 0Icky0

There is no confusion. True evolutionists will have to believe in a spontaneous beginning to everything. So, though biology and cosmology are separate now, they have a common ancestor (sound familiar?).

VERY familiar. It's one of the oldest strawman arguments in the creationists' book.

aglassonion has a fair statement. It is not logical to just shut it down with a jab at religion.

That wasn't a jab at religion. I accurately identified his statement as a strawman argument that is frequently used by creationists. Are you disagreeing with my assessment?

Accurately? Hmmm, now that is more of a matter of opinion but nevermind. I guess I am disagreeing with your assessment. Care to elaborate?

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires a "spontaneous beginning to everything." He is falsely attributing that requirement to evolution. This is commonly referred to as a "strawman argument", and is fallacious. Creationists have been using this argument for a long time, incorrectly conflating things "big bang theory" and abiogenesis with evolution.


So would you say that the big bang theory and evolution are not related in any way?
 
2008-02-15 11:07:17 PM  
ActualFarkal: "That being said, Christians shouldn't play Spore because, as the Creator, you're going to fark up and make a crappy animal, something that God wouldn't do."

There are actually a ton of pretty obvious "oversights" in human "Design" that make sense only in the context of evolution. Sometimes the solution that a blind process arrives at is "good enough", where the better solution would've been obvious to even human intelligence. The face that the center of our vision is actually blocked by a blood vessel due to the way our eyes evolved, for instance; this flaw is not present in many other creatures, some of whom have eyes far superior to our own in every other respect as well.
 
2008-02-15 11:07:34 PM  
ActualFarkal

You don't think god (if there is one) farked up when he made the platypus? What kind of an asshole mammal lays eggs? I mean you have to admit, the platypus is an asshole for even existing. Look at him with his duckbill, venom, and beavertail...what a douche.
 
2008-02-15 11:07:38 PM  
As for the female orgasm thing...

About one woman in four hasn't had one yet in the 18-25 age group (one in three in the South). They are usually severe head cases (a contributing factor) but can be cured by a combination of booze, bullshiate pillowtalk, and mechanical devices.

Warning: this makes them clingy.
 
2008-02-15 11:07:54 PM  
Darkraven: Science is simply the language of God.

That makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like something Oprah would say.
 
2008-02-15 11:08:36 PM  
Bevets

Farkers are rarely willing to engage my argument. They would MUCH rather complain about my delivery, engage in ad hominem, or argue about trivial tangents.

Your "argument" is nothing of the sort. You spit out mis-attributed quotes that even when shown to be inaccurate, you refuse to correct. (Another lie for you.) Quotes are not an argument. Quotes are not proof. We are talking of science. You are dealing in semantics. If all you are willing to do is engage in semantics, you should not be surprised when all people do is deride your delivery, your person, and trivia, because that is all there is to your argument.

/the Liar Bevets
//Everyone can see the truth.
 
2008-02-15 11:09:00 PM  
aglassonion: 0Icky0

I understand why you make the distinction, but ultimately, it seems illogical.

Does it not matter at all to someone who believes in abiogenesis to also have a theory about the origins of the universe?


You're putting words in scientists' mouths.

Someone who "believes in abiogenesis" doesn't necessarily believe life sprang up spontaneously. Abiogenesis is a field of study with many competing theories as to how it happened.

As more research is done and more evidence is accumulated, maybe one of these theories (or a combination) will gain more solid ground. Maybe none of them will, and we'll have to come up with something new.

Saying "atheists believe the universe came into existence spontaneously, ergo they believe life did too" does not make it so. While it makes a nice soundbyte, it directly contradicts the available evidence.

Also, while an abiogensist may have their own pet theories regarding the beginnings of the universe, they'd probably all recognize that it isn't their field of expertise. So their opinions on the beginnings of the cosmos wouldn't really matter.

If so, logically, there could only be one theory. If life began spontaneously, then wouldn't the cosmos have, too? If you can't believe that concretely about the cosmos, then that will always leave the possibility of a design, which could then be applied to biological life.

That's why I really don't see a difference. =\

img218.imageshack.us
(Thanks idsfa)

I have a blue toothbrush. Therefore, logically, I must also have a blue car.
 
2008-02-15 11:10:51 PM  
VonAether: I have a blue toothbrush. Therefore, logically, I must also have a blue car.

You know who else designed a car....
 
2008-02-15 11:10:56 PM  
shocker66s: improvius: shocker66s: improvius: shocker66s: improvius: aglassonion: 0Icky0

There is no confusion. True evolutionists will have to believe in a spontaneous beginning to everything. So, though biology and cosmology are separate now, they have a common ancestor (sound familiar?).

VERY familiar. It's one of the oldest strawman arguments in the creationists' book.

aglassonion has a fair statement. It is not logical to just shut it down with a jab at religion.

That wasn't a jab at religion. I accurately identified his statement as a strawman argument that is frequently used by creationists. Are you disagreeing with my assessment?

Accurately? Hmmm, now that is more of a matter of opinion but nevermind. I guess I am disagreeing with your assessment. Care to elaborate?

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires a "spontaneous beginning to everything." He is falsely attributing that requirement to evolution. This is commonly referred to as a "strawman argument", and is fallacious. Creationists have been using this argument for a long time, incorrectly conflating things "big bang theory" and abiogenesis with evolution.

So would you say that the big bang theory and evolution are not related in any way?


They are not related any more than any other two randomly selected scientific theories.
 
2008-02-15 11:10:57 PM  
shocker66s: Religion is about faith. Similar to science.

Not really. Religious faith has no basis other than that it is a compelling idea to some people. There has been absolutely no evidence found to back it up in thousands of years of searching.

Scientific faith is based on the assumption that universe will almost always work to the model we have developed. And it does.
 
2008-02-15 11:11:10 PM  
Darkraven: "I believe in God.

I also believe in science.

Science is simply the language of God."


I think you're confusing cutting-edge scientific concepts with ancient, primitive superstitions. Taking credit for science on behalf of religion is a bit like signing a retarded toddler's name to a Rembrandt.

As alchemy became chemistry, phrenology became neurology, astrology became astronomy and so forth, religion has become science. That some still prefer the former is every bit as pathetic as people who prefer alchemy to chemistry, or astrology to astronomy.
 
2008-02-15 11:11:44 PM  
D'oh. I know I had some italics tags around here somewhere.
 
2008-02-15 11:11:54 PM  
Farkers are rarely willing to engage my argument. They would MUCH rather complain about my delivery, engage in ad hominem, or argue about trivial tangents.

CaptainJuan

Every one of Bevets' arguments has been thoroughly responded to and debunked in previous threads. You could go read old evolution threads or you could go to talkorigins. Sometimes, people just get frustrated by ignorance.

Please give a specific example, so people can judge for themselves.
 
2008-02-15 11:12:33 PM  
as long as they put "the widely accepted, and general concensus among people who know what the hell they're actually talking about, theory of..." I'm ok with that.

Seriously, tbh, keep your democracy out of my science, and keep your religion out of my democracy. Science is about discovery. If facts of the universe were widely accepted, they wouldn't be discoveries, they would be common sense. We don't need to keep the ignorant in the loop, their purpose is to make socks and eventually become extinct. I really wish the world was run by compassionate scientists, not politicians, and borderline psychotic religious freaks.
 
2008-02-15 11:13:44 PM  
VonAether

I understand what you are trying to say, seriously, but it's just not making sense to me. Call me a fool.

But ignoring the use of "sponatenous", do we agree that the foundation of abiogenesis is that, somehow, life came from non-life?
 
2008-02-15 11:14:20 PM  
Zamboro: As alchemy became chemistry, phrenology became neurology, astrology became astronomy and so forth, religion has become science. That some still prefer the former is every bit as pathetic as people who prefer alchemy to chemistry, or astrology to astronomy.

If I had a really big bumper, that would make a great sticker.
 
2008-02-15 11:14:37 PM  
shocker66s: Religion is about faith. Similar to science.

The thing is, science works. We can prove that it works, not by turning it inward on itself, but through tangible applications like technology. Applied science proves that scientific methodology results in findings that accurately reflect reality by actually putting them to the test; If nuclear science weren't accurate, nuclear reactors would not function. But they do. If the physics of rocketry didn't accurately reflect reality, our rockets wouldn't function. If the millions of equally pertinent theories that make a single computer possible weren't accurate, you and I wouldn't be on the internet having this discussion.

My first point isn't so much that science works (because you cannot reasonably deny that) but that applied science in the form of technology makes it unnecessary to turn science inward on itself to prove its own efficacy. Where are your examples of technology based upon applied divine revelation? Do you have any?

My second point is that whether or not science is the only way of knowing, it's the only one so far. It's useless to downplay the primacy of science when you have yet to put forth any credible alternative.
 
2008-02-15 11:17:43 PM  
Bevets:

OMG OMG HE RESPONDED TO ME THATS THE FIRST TIME THATS EVER HAPPENED OMG

*ahem*

Anyway. Why should I copy/paste what's been said to you so very many times in other threads? You won't change your mind, and neither will anyone who agrees with you.

...But, for the hell of it:


Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.


Theists will consider natural causes, but if they don't understand or cannot find the natural cause, they will attribute it to god and simply stop looking for a natural cause. Atheists will consider natural causes, but if they don't understand or cannot find the natural cause, they will keep searching for a natural cause until it is found.

By the way, I'm using your definitions here:
Theist = Bevets and anyone who believes what Bevets does.
Atheist = Anyone who disagrees with Bevets, be they Theistic evolutionists, atheists, Catholics, Jews, scientists, or other people of the non-retarded persuasion.
 
2008-02-15 11:17:47 PM  
aglassonion: But ignoring the use of "sponatenous", do we agree that the foundation of abiogenesis is that, somehow, life came from non-life?

Certainly. But that doesn't mean it had to be spontaneous. There are things now, such as viruses (pops), that straddle the line between life and non-life.
 
2008-02-15 11:18:15 PM  
Bevets: Please give a specific example, so people can judge for themselves.

You know for someone who rarely answers a question directly and usually hides behind other people's quotes, you sure are demanding.
 
2008-02-15 11:18:41 PM  
improvius: shocker66s: improvius: shocker66s: improvius: shocker66s: improvius: aglassonion: 0Icky0

There is no confusion. True evolutionists will have to believe in a spontaneous beginning to everything. So, though biology and cosmology are separate now, they have a common ancestor (sound familiar?).

VERY familiar. It's one of the oldest strawman arguments in the creationists' book.

aglassonion has a fair statement. It is not logical to just shut it down with a jab at religion.

That wasn't a jab at religion. I accurately identified his statement as a strawman argument that is frequently used by creationists. Are you disagreeing with my assessment?

Accurately? Hmmm, now that is more of a matter of opinion but nevermind. I guess I am disagreeing with your assessment. Care to elaborate?

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires a "spontaneous beginning to everything." He is falsely attributing that requirement to evolution. This is commonly referred to as a "strawman argument", and is fallacious. Creationists have been using this argument for a long time, incorrectly conflating things "big bang theory" and abiogenesis with evolution.

So would you say that the big bang theory and evolution are not related in any way?

They are not related any more than any other two randomly selected scientific theories.


Hmmm, kind of like physics and mathematics. There are plenty of theories in those to studies and yet they both dance together very beautifully. Following your logic then evolution and the big bang theory are very related. That in turn makes "The Strawman Argument" a valid point.
 
2008-02-15 11:18:52 PM  
Zamboro: Well, no, you are assuming that I believe in conventional "Christian" religion. I do believe the first spark of life started from God himself, and that humans eventually evolved through evolution. The Torah( I'm Jewish, I'll stick to the Old Testament, thank you) I feel are actual stories with supernatural embellishments. There is a kernel of truth in everything.

To read DNA--to understand the workings of the cosmos--is to know that illusive mind of God. Science is my Torah. God I feel is the master of all science, all laws.
 
2008-02-15 11:18:58 PM  
Bevets: Farkers are rarely willing to engage my argument. They would MUCH rather complain about my delivery, engage in ad hominem, or argue about trivial tangents.

CaptainJuan

Every one of Bevets' arguments has been thoroughly responded to and debunked in previous threads. You could go read old evolution threads or you could go to talkorigins. Sometimes, people just get frustrated by ignorance.

Please give a specific example, so people can judge for themselves.


Well for example, you've never actually made one that's not based on a falicy. Basically, you post quotes that ether misinterpret evidence, or outright ignore it, and declare your side winner by default. Thats not a logical argument.

Furthermore, by posting bible quotes to prove the bible is inerrent, you make a circular reasoning argument. If the bible wasn't true, then it's quotes of inerrency would be meaningless.

Furthermore, you often take quotes out of context to try to twist their authors words to support your argument. when you cannot twist their words, you just outright ignore the argument, or the poster. You also highlight certain parts of a posters message and link to yet more quotes that prove nothing beyond your love of the appeal to authority falicy.

Since no evidence can ever meet your standards because, in your mind, your side is right and all other possible scientific explanations are wrong, you simply refuse to consider them.

Scientists would consider divine actions in their theories if they had any empirical evidence that such actions should be considered.
 
2008-02-15 11:20:40 PM  
Darkraven: God I feel is the master of all science, all laws.

Does he grant you eternal life in heaven?
 
2008-02-15 11:21:28 PM  
0Icky0

Interesting about the viruses. But they are either living or non-living, though it may be too early to tell. There is still this one point in a time where life came from non-live, even if it's possibly the introduction of something extremely basic like a virus.
 
2008-02-15 11:21:38 PM  
i200.photobucket.com
 
2008-02-15 11:22:55 PM  
Bevets: Farkers are rarely willing to engage my argument. They would MUCH rather complain about my delivery, engage in ad hominem, or argue about trivial tangents.

CaptainJuan

Every one of Bevets' arguments has been thoroughly responded to and debunked in previous threads. You could go read old evolution threads or you could go to talkorigins. Sometimes, people just get frustrated by ignorance.

Please give a specific example, so people can judge for themselves.


I only really know you by reputation. Can you explain your view of how the human form assembled in 3 paragraphs without seemingly random quotes? I'm actually curious what you're point is.
 
2008-02-15 11:23:08 PM  
aglassonion: VonAether

I understand what you are trying to say, seriously, but it's just not making sense to me. Call me a fool.

But ignoring the use of "sponatenous", do we agree that the foundation of abiogenesis is that, somehow, life came from non-life?


Yes, that's the general idea. First there was non-life. Chemical soup, if you will. Then, probably, some chemicals assembled into a form of self-replicating molecule. Molecules became more complex.

It's hard to say where the dividing line between "complex self-replicating molecule" and "simple form of life" is. One man's molecule is another man's proto-bacteria.

I'm not terribly knowledgeable in the field myself, but that's how I understand it.

What does this have to do with cosmologists' theories as to the beginnings of the universe as we know it? Nothing at all.
 
2008-02-15 11:24:00 PM  
shocker66s: Hmmm, kind of like physics and mathematics. There are plenty of theories in those to studies and yet they both dance together very beautifully. Following your logic then evolution and the big bang theory are very related. That in turn makes "The Strawman Argument" a valid point.

Mathematics is not a science, it is a branch of philosophy. (thanks abb3w)

Also, there are no scientific theories in mathematics. If there were, they'd be in a scientific field, not in a mathematical field. The word 'theory' in mathematics is used informally to refer to a system of evaluating and interpreting mathematical data or information. See: Galois theory, set theory. A scientific theory is a rigorously tested model for understanding and predicting real-world occurrences. Or something like that.
 
2008-02-15 11:24:59 PM  
 
2008-02-15 11:25:44 PM  
Zamboro: shocker66s: Religion is about faith. Similar to science.

The thing is, science works. We can prove that it works, not by turning it inward on itself, but through tangible applications like technology. Applied science proves that scientific methodology results in findings that accurately reflect reality by actually putting them to the test; If nuclear science weren't accurate, nuclear reactors would not function. But they do. If the physics of rocketry didn't accurately reflect reality, our rockets wouldn't function. If the millions of equally pertinent theories that make a single computer possible weren't accurate, you and I wouldn't be on the internet having this discussion.

My first point isn't so much that science works (because you cannot reasonably deny that) but that applied science in the form of technology makes it unnecessary to turn science inward on itself to prove its own efficacy. Where are your examples of technology based upon applied divine revelation? Do you have any?

My second point is that whether or not science is the only way of knowing, it's the only one so far. It's useless to downplay the primacy of science when you have yet to put forth any credible alternative.


I think your missing my point. I'm not saying science does not work.(up to a point) I'm saying that science is always wrong. I have history to prove that and the scientific community. Science always disproves itself. If that is the case then why can't science be wrong about God? Which brings us full circle. We just don't know.
 
2008-02-15 11:26:13 PM  
aglassonion: Interesting about the viruses. But they are either living or non-living

No. Unless you are saying that a virus is no different than lead or water. They are somewhere in between dead and alive. Just as there is a color in the spectrum between blue and green that is neither blue or green.
 
2008-02-15 11:26:22 PM  
CaptainJuan: electricblue:

The whole 'vaginal O =/= clitoral O' thing is a fallacy. All the nerves in the vagina have their roots in the little man in the boat.


by my (rather limited, 4 subjects)field studies they are a much different orgasm with clitoral and vaginal.
 
2008-02-15 11:27:22 PM  
shocker66s: I think your missing my point. I'm not saying science does not work.(up to a point) I'm saying that science is always wrong. I have history to prove that and the scientific community. Science always disproves itself. If that is the case then why can't science be wrong about God? Which brings us full circle. We just don't know.

Good lord, man. SCIENCE HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT GOD. People who talk about scientifically disproving god are actually using philosophical and logical arguments, interspersed with some scientific ideas. Science has nothing to say about god, philosophy does.
 
2008-02-15 11:28:22 PM  
electricblue: by my (rather limited, 4 subjects)field studies they are a much different orgasm with clitoral and vaginal.

Yeah, the sensations are substantially different, but physiologically they're identical. The difference is because there is a higher concentration of nerve endings in the clitoris, providing a more intense sensation.
 
2008-02-15 11:28:27 PM  
shocker66s: improvius: shocker66s: improvius: shocker66s: improvius: shocker66s: improvius: aglassonion: 0Icky0

There is no confusion. True evolutionists will have to believe in a spontaneous beginning to everything. So, though biology and cosmology are separate now, they have a common ancestor (sound familiar?).

VERY familiar. It's one of the oldest strawman arguments in the creationists' book.

aglassonion has a fair statement. It is not logical to just shut it down with a jab at religion.

That wasn't a jab at religion. I accurately identified his statement as a strawman argument that is frequently used by creationists. Are you disagreeing with my assessment?

Accurately? Hmmm, now that is more of a matter of opinion but nevermind. I guess I am disagreeing with your assessment. Care to elaborate?

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires a "spontaneous beginning to everything." He is falsely attributing that requirement to evolution. This is commonly referred to as a "strawman argument", and is fallacious. Creationists have been using this argument for a long time, incorrectly conflating things "big bang theory" and abiogenesis with evolution.

So would you say that the big bang theory and evolution are not related in any way?

They are not related any more than any other two randomly selected scientific theories.

Hmmm, kind of like physics and mathematics. There are plenty of theories in those to studies and yet they both dance together very beautifully. Following your logic then evolution and the big bang theory are very related. That in turn makes "The Strawman Argument" a valid point.


You're just making word salad here. Evolution is dependent neither on abiogenesis nor BBT, period.
 
2008-02-15 11:28:39 PM  
Outtaphase:
Hopefully, it will give teachers a wide opening and impetus to teach the meaning and technique of "scientific theory". How does this differ from hypothesis? How does it compare/contrast to "truth" or "fact"? This is more important than mere facts about biology, because it teaches people how to correctly evaluate and think about things for themselves. If this were a major part of the core curriculum from early on, this debate might not exist.


shh! don't tell floriduh
 
2008-02-15 11:29:03 PM  
ninjakirby: Still only one book for the side of Religion/Creationism though.

Darwin's Cathedral isn't exactly anti-religion; it merely suggests that religion also evolves, and has evolved to serve a useful function. Most rabid atheists deserve to be beaten with it repeatedly. As a book about an aspect of Evolution, it probably qualifies as anti-Creationism.

SkinnyHead: Cars do appear to have evolved. My car even has a vestigial cigarette lighter that is now used as a 12v power source. Are you suggesting that appearance of evolution is evidence of evolution?

Bearing in mind that such evidence is the most superficial kind, and that appearances are often deceiving, I would tentatively agree that the appearance of evolution is evidence of evolution.
tbn0.google.com

aglassonion: I hate using the term "evidences" when dealing with this topic, but the most logical explanation of most of the "evidences" is intelligent design.

You don't seem to know much about design, either.

abb3w: I agree with your position on banning him; on Fark, he's harmless and educational. Banned, he might go seriously off the deep end and become dangerous.
Bevets: Farkers are rarely willing to engage my argument. They would MUCH rather complain about my delivery, engage in ad hominem, or argue about trivial tangents.

Well, you and I seem to have previously established that our fundamental worldviews are incompatible. You hold the Word of God to be the highest form of truth, even over the Robbins Axioms of Logic that provide the most fundamental principles for how to relate ideas to one another. If you don't accept the same rules of logic and inference, "trivial tangents" is about all that's left.

If you see a way around this, by all means make a suggestion. In the meanwhile, I'm eating my damn popcorn.

aglassonion: True evolutionists will have to believe in a spontaneous beginning to everything.

Err... no. I believe that the Formal Complexity of the Observed Universe has a Cantor Ordinal Turing Degree. More understandably in this context, this means that facts simply are; the relationships between them describe the character of the universe, but such relationships may not always exist. "Cause" and "effect" are merely artifacts of time; "beginnings" and "endings" are illusions of Maya, so to speak.
 
2008-02-15 11:29:34 PM  
Bevets Farkers are rarely willing to engage my argument. They would MUCH rather complain about my delivery, engage in ad hominem, or argue about trivial tangents.

I have beliefs just like you do. But for everything I believe, there exists at least one proposition, which, if shown to be true, would cause me to abandon that belief. I believe this is a critical component of humility: the willingness to say, "You are right, and I am wrong."

Are there any proposition(s), that, if shown to be true, would cause you to abandon your belief in creationism?
 
2008-02-15 11:29:55 PM  
improvius:
Bevets typically doesn't respond to substantial arguments.


I think it's fair to say that when popular opinion heavily outweighs a different viewpoint it's impossible to reply to everything. This is why it makes sense to provide links, many factual and others simply offering an idea or two.

CaptainJuan:

Every one of Bevets' arguments has been thoroughly responded to and debunked in previous threads.


LOL. Nice try, I'll give you an A for effort on that one.
 
2008-02-15 11:30:07 PM  
shocker66s: I'm saying that science is always wrong. I have history to prove that and the scientific community. Science always disproves itself.

Science is sometimes wrong, but not always. Successive theories are a refinement of our model of the universe, not a complete abandonment of the previous. Newton wasn't WRONG, just not as precise as Einstein. We can still use Newton's theories to get to the moon and back.

The same can't be said for religion because it's impossible to test.
 
2008-02-15 11:30:56 PM  
VonAether

That's exactly how I see it, nicely put. So it seems agreed that, despite how vague the line is, ultimately life somehow came from non-life. I can understand that.

Now here is the scenario going through my head: A person believes the above about the origins of life. He starts thinking about the origins of the universe. To explain this to himself, wouldn't he have to also believe that something came out of nothing in regard to the universe? The only alternative would be a design.

It seems so clear in my head but I can't quite type out it clearly enough, my bad.
 
2008-02-15 11:30:57 PM  
Darkraven: "Well, no, you are assuming that I believe in conventional "Christian" religion.

Where did I say anything about Christianity to you?

Darkraven: "I do believe the first spark of life started from God himself, and that humans eventually evolved through evolution. The Torah( I'm Jewish, I'll stick to the Old Testament, thank you) I feel are actual stories with supernatural embellishments. There is a kernel of truth in everything."

So basically you plagiarize the past few centuries of scientific findings and integrate it into your religion as though it was a part of it all along?

So your theism is diluted to the point that it's 99% science. Good for you, that's 99% less retarded than it was before. The problem is that it's still 1% magic, and that 1% is something science is has already explained in such a way as to remove the need for a magical explanation.

Darkraven: "To read DNA--to understand the workings of the cosmos--is to know that illusive mind of God. Science is my Torah. God I feel is the master of all science, all laws."

You've explained what you believe, but you haven't supported it. A follower of Asatru may just as easily pull the same stunt, inserting his pantheon of ancient deities into various administrative/creative roles throughout the universe as science has revealed it. It's a bit like ripping pages from Gilgamesh and then sticking them into A Brief History of Time, as though that somehow lent legitimacy to the notion that Ishtar truly is the goddess of the heavens, reigning beside Marduk atop her celestial bull.
 
2008-02-15 11:31:08 PM  
Sumo Surfer: LOL. Nice try, I'll give you an A for effort on that one.

Am I wrong?
 
2008-02-15 11:33:31 PM  
shocker66s: "I'm not saying science does not work.(up to a point) I'm saying that science is always wrong. I have history to prove that and the scientific community. Science always disproves itself."

You're posting this on the internet, using a computer. Can you show me similar technological applications of some other fact-finding methodology besides science?

Produce them.
 
2008-02-15 11:33:48 PM  
ChadManMn2008-02-15 09:23:24 PM
I'll just drop by and say that anyone who views evolution as we currently understand as being fact, is subscribing to what amounts to a religion. I say this because evolution cannot be recreated in a lab, and it cant be observed (outside of adaptation).

In my book, its a theory. A good one, and worthy of further study, but not fact.


We actually have seen sparrows evolve within the last 50 years. Wing size, i believe. I can't link to the article, it's in a Natural History Mag, and they haven't 'evolved' onto the internets yet. But what can you do. Point is, we've seen it happen.

/Observed.
 
2008-02-15 11:33:53 PM  
aglassonion: A person believes the above about the origins of life. He starts thinking about the origins of the universe. To explain this to himself, wouldn't he have to also believe that something came out of nothing in regard to the universe?

Something either had to come out of nothing somewhere down the line, or

1. It's always been here
2. The question is sort of pointless. We'll never know.

Either way, the introduction of some sort of God is superfluous. Where did God come from?
 
Displayed 50 of 760 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report