Louisiana passes first antievolution "academic freedom" law

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
3
76
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: rbV5
Secondly evolution is a theory in the sense that it explains the origins of life.

Get this; The theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with, nor says ANYTHING about the ORIGINS of life..period.

This point seems to be missed completely by a large number of people, so it bears repeating.

Is this a widely held scientific belief? I notice that many people here who support evolution have linked it with the origins of life.

I'm not sure how you could think they have anything to do with one another. I'm a Christian and I believe in evolution.

*sigh* Read what I what just wrote. People here on this forum (and in other places) have linked evolution and the origin of life together. That is how I thought one had something to do with the other.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: RightIsWrongAll theories/views/opinions are not. Some are just flat out wrong and shouldn't even be included.

We should start out by applying this bit of wisdom to your own mindset.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,081
10,883
136
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
I see some ID'rs and Creationists are still beating this dead horse.

Evolution 1 - ID 0

that's the way its going to stay until scientific proof of God is shown.


I have a repeatable verifiable scientific test to prove to you once and for all whether God exists or not!

Let me kill you. Then you can come back and give us the answer... :)

cute, minus the part where he can't come back to tell you the answer.

dismissing people's statements with some trite, cliche, single-sentence remark is no way to conduct a debate/argument.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: Citrix
here just so that we all know what a theory is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements.

Holy shit, are you retarded? The very same wiki article goes on to say immediately below the paragraph you quoted:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena
(emphasis added)

Just do yourself a favor and stop posting for a while. The best thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging.


EDIT: :laugh: I guess I'm a little late to this particular dogpile....

i dug no hole. then tell me why its called the THEORY of evolution instead of Evolution the Fact of it, learn it, live it love it....

again im talking about homo sapiens. not lower forms of life.

You are thicker than a redwood in northern California. Seriously dude. stop hurting yourself like this.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: ArkitechThis is the problems with these type of discussions, you can not apply the same rules on religion that you can on science. Science is a discipline based in observation and experimentation, religion is a practice of faith. Although the two are not mutually exclusive the approach is different. Billions of people on this planet have a spiritual inclination (likely some in your own families) and it's foolish to dismiss their beliefs as nothing more than antiquated superstitions. At the very least investigate something before you attempting to become the authority on what is'nt real or factual.

For the most part I agree with your overall position in the above paragraph. However, since you will agree that Science is a completely different discipline, I hope you would also agree that a class that is focused on science should never present something unscientific as an alternative. If they are to discuss intelligent design, it should be the "before science came in and whooped its ass" in the same way spontaneous appearance of maggots on meat is handled.

No. flat out: there is no room for discussion of intelligent design (aka: creationism) in the science room. at all. it does not lend itself to scientific testing, as in no way a scientific discipline. children would think that this is science, when an assertion of that nature is patently false. It shouldn't even be mentioned in the classroom as "not science," as the mere suggestion of it lends credence to it being valid. It isn't valid, no scientist debates that maybe intelligent design is "right" and evolution is not. only the agenda-driven ignorant bring it out of the cellar and create this public issue.

This is not a debate within the scientific community. it is one CREATED by the fundamentalists. It's important that this distinction is recognized.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Arkitech


This is the problems with these type of discussions, you can not apply the same rules on religion that you can on science. Science is a discipline based in observation and experimentation, religion is a practice of faith. Although the two are not mutually exclusive the approach is different. Billions of people on this planet have a spiritual inclination (likely some in your own families) and it's foolish to dismiss their beliefs as nothing more than antiquated superstitions. At the very least investigate something before you attempting to become the authority on what isn't real or factual.

Here's the amazing thing about science: anything can be quantified observed and experimented on. Studies have shown that there is no power in prayer, and none has ever given any reason to believe that any of the claims made by any religion are true.

Einstein said it best, when a politically motivated book was published titled "100 Scientists against Einstein" -- "If I was wrong, it would take only one"

Simply put, even if there was absolutely nobody on the planet who didn't believe, but there was still no evidence, the belief would still be irrational.


I have to state it again, that the rules of science can't be applied to religion. So to respond about your reply on the studying of prayers, that type of approach likely will not work. However let's examine why many feel the need to excercise some form of spirituality, I could say that we were created with this need within us but I'm sure I would be attacked with 80 replies after I hit refresh. So instead I will say many intelligent people (scientists included) have felt a need to fill what they define as a spiritual need. Also I'm sure familiar with the quote "there are no athiests in a foxhole". So even if you don't believe in God or creationism, how do you explain this inherent need in people to seek out a spiritual existence?

again, you're absolutely correct (bolded) Which is EXACTLY why religion (intelligent design) has absolutely no place in a scientific classroom. simple as that. Surely you agree with this, if you agree with what you have said
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: ArkitechThis is the problems with these type of discussions, you can not apply the same rules on religion that you can on science. Science is a discipline based in observation and experimentation, religion is a practice of faith. Although the two are not mutually exclusive the approach is different. Billions of people on this planet have a spiritual inclination (likely some in your own families) and it's foolish to dismiss their beliefs as nothing more than antiquated superstitions. At the very least investigate something before you attempting to become the authority on what is'nt real or factual.

For the most part I agree with your overall position in the above paragraph. However, since you will agree that Science is a completely different discipline, I hope you would also agree that a class that is focused on science should never present something unscientific as an alternative. If they are to discuss intelligent design, it should be the "before science came in and whooped its ass" in the same way spontaneous appearance of maggots on meat is handled.

I don't agree with your slant on ID but I agree that science class should be based on science. I definitely don't side with the thought that bible education or religion needs to be forced on people who don't want it.

...which is what ID is. that is not debatable.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Arkitech


This is the problems with these type of discussions, you can not apply the same rules on religion that you can on science. Science is a discipline based in observation and experimentation, religion is a practice of faith. Although the two are not mutually exclusive the approach is different. Billions of people on this planet have a spiritual inclination (likely some in your own families) and it's foolish to dismiss their beliefs as nothing more than antiquated superstitions. At the very least investigate something before you attempting to become the authority on what isn't real or factual.

Here's the amazing thing about science: anything can be quantified observed and experimented on. Studies have shown that there is no power in prayer, and none has ever given any reason to believe that any of the claims made by any religion are true.

Einstein said it best, when a politically motivated book was published titled "100 Scientists against Einstein" -- "If I was wrong, it would take only one"

Simply put, even if there was absolutely nobody on the planet who didn't believe, but there was still no evidence, the belief would still be irrational.


I have to state it again, that the rules of science can't be applied to religion. So to respond about your reply on the studying of prayers, that type of approach likely will not work. However let's examine why many feel the need to excercise some form of spirituality, I could say that we were created with this need within us but I'm sure I would be attacked with 80 replies after I hit refresh. So instead I will say many intelligent people (scientists included) have felt a need to fill what they define as a spiritual need. Also I'm sure familiar with the quote "there are no athiests in a foxhole". So even if you don't believe in God or creationism, how do you explain this inherent need in people to seek out a spiritual existence?

If you state that the rules of science can't be applied to religion, than the reverse should also be true: religion should hold no place in scientific analysis, nor should it ever belong in a science classroom.

I agree with that, in fact the only reason I'm in this thread is because I was tired of seeing all the ID bashing.

but it's well-deserved. Creationism lost the battle to evolution (despite the stragglers still clinging to the guardrails), so they just gave it a new name and kept fighting.

 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Whisper
I honestly don't know that evolutionary laws and ideas could be so finely applied to such a distinct higher-level component of human cognition as the desire to express spirituality. I see the point you're trying to make--that spirituality might be a condition that occurs secondary to the particular way in which the human neocortex has evolved--but to say that spirituality is an evolutionary adaptation is taking quite a few leaps.

As for the law, I can see how it'd be a major problem, although if implemented correctly (i.e., if they promote the same level of critical analysis towards ID/creationism that they direct at natural selection and evolution), it might foster higher-order thinking. Not that I think it'll happen, but eh, one can hope.

You're absolutely right, it is a rather large leap -- I have read (granted only in "new scientist" which runs toward speculation at times) about before. What I'm saying is that there could certainly be reasons for a human predilection for the supernatural that are entirely natural in and of themselves.

This is something I agree with, and I've seen it as a manifestation of the human need "to know." It was our instincts, our curiosity, our needs to adapt to an ever-changing environment that brought us to where we are. Our significant advantage, of course, is our brain. We don't have the natural abilities to hunt, survive long winters, or long ocean-voyages that other specialized animals have. However, we can make tools.

Another necessary part of our survival is an ability to understand nature around us, to better prepare for an oncoming winter, a tidal flood for the best time to plant our crops, the seasonal approach of a migratory herd, etc. This invariably leads to greater curiosity about the things around us. It stands to reason that those who are more curious, those with the greater need to know, were the ones who adapt better. Religion comes from this need to know, a way of explaining why things happen around us. Why they change. Why we die.

This is a primordial need in humans, and is not something that should be taken lightly. Religion itself is certainly not genetic (I.E, there is no "Christain gene," just as there is no "Hindu gene," or "Judaism gene," or "Islam gene," etc.), but it does appear that this need for a spirituality has been passed on. Perhaps it's a need to feel humble? Perhaps we need to restrict ourselves, perhaps it was those who were cautious about the world around them, maybe due to a belief in a higher power (such as the "Wind God"), that passed their genes on to modern humans.

Like when fire was first discovered. There's evidence that during this early period of human evolution, vast forests were burned to the ground. Perhaps it was those who would simply light a stick and run free with it that burned themselves and their genes into obscurity, while the early man that humbled himself before this awesome power of fire, followed a set of rules to appease the Fire God-: make in stone berth, do not anger, that were successful.

 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Arkitech


This is the problems with these type of discussions, you can not apply the same rules on religion that you can on science. Science is a discipline based in observation and experimentation, religion is a practice of faith. Although the two are not mutually exclusive the approach is different. Billions of people on this planet have a spiritual inclination (likely some in your own families) and it's foolish to dismiss their beliefs as nothing more than antiquated superstitions. At the very least investigate something before you attempting to become the authority on what isn't real or factual.

Here's the amazing thing about science: anything can be quantified observed and experimented on. Studies have shown that there is no power in prayer, and none has ever given any reason to believe that any of the claims made by any religion are true.

Einstein said it best, when a politically motivated book was published titled "100 Scientists against Einstein" -- "If I was wrong, it would take only one"

Simply put, even if there was absolutely nobody on the planet who didn't believe, but there was still no evidence, the belief would still be irrational.


I have to state it again, that the rules of science can't be applied to religion. So to respond about your reply on the studying of prayers, that type of approach likely will not work. However let's examine why many feel the need to excercise some form of spirituality, I could say that we were created with this need within us but I'm sure I would be attacked with 80 replies after I hit refresh. So instead I will say many intelligent people (scientists included) have felt a need to fill what they define as a spiritual need. Also I'm sure familiar with the quote "there are no athiests in a foxhole". So even if you don't believe in God or creationism, how do you explain this inherent need in people to seek out a spiritual existence?

You claim that science can't apply to religion, but that's silly. You can take two groups of people, one praying and one not praying and see if the praying group benefits. If there was a god listening and answering, there would be a statistical result. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

As for a need for spirituality, that is most likely an evolved trait as it promotes group cohesion which confers a competitive benefit on that group. It's a hell of a lot easier to get a guy to die if he believes that he's going to heaven than if he thinks his death is pointless.

Edit: To be fair, I don't care if you wish to have religion, that's your business. So long as you don't use it as a basis for public education or law, I wish you the best with it.

Lets go out on a limb for an example, let's say that you were god. (I'm cringing as I type this because this is surely a can of worms) And you noticed a bunch of silly people trying to prove or disprove your existence. You know that you exist, those who believe in you know that you exist, why alter your plans or waste time to play games with those doing the experiments.

I don't know if this is how God views things or not. But I do know that even if those studies on prayers had produced some kind of result that there still would have been arguments on whether the results happened based on some supernatural occurence or some other explanation. This has all happened in the bible anyway, someone doubts that God exists, God proves his power and people still doubt that power or even came from God. So unless God physically comes down to earth with a "Hi my name is" sticker on his shirt, people won't believe if they don't want to.

except that "God proving his power" has long since been shown to be "ahhh, natural phenomena." Stuff we can predict. In the bible, floods and cities burning to the ground happened b/c of God's wrath--directed at the heathens. Of course, that's silly.

We now know that floods happen b/c of above-normal rain, Hurricanes, levees breaking, etc. Cities burn to the ground because of poor municipal planning, or some drunken retarded emperor.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: wart thumbed
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
that's because ID deserves to be bashed.

creationism blended with half-baked scientific theories is just plain idiotic.

There is no defense of ID. Intelligent Design is simply not intelligent.

Way to be a total sucker and post a baseless front about something you probably know NOTHING about.

Next time if you want to discuss something, take in both sides and see the pros and cons instead of projecting a completely insolent remark.

I probably know far more about ID than you do, and I can say that Iron Woode's comment is 100% accurate.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I disagree, he has the perfect tool, the ability to cut the shit and get right to the truth.

If you need to insult a belief/concept/position in an attempt to debate it, you've either ran out of intelligent responses or lacked the knowledge to step into the conversation to begin with.


Nested quotes suck

ATOT Moderator ElFenix

again, Intelligent Design does not lend itself to rational debate. You said so yourself that science and religion are based on different systems of logic, and should not be presented as the same structure. You're right about that. You also said that religion should not appear in the science classroom.

All that's left is for you to open your eyes to what ID really is, and I think you'd find yourself back onto that logical path that you've already begun.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: halik
Awesome,
ACLU will tear them a collective new asshole. Hello lawsuits!

well, this is the problem, and is exactly what happened in Dover. the horribly un-informed and incredibly greedy schoolboard completely bankrupted that school district b/c of the lawsuits (their responsibility) that they brought open that community. Their system is essentially bankrupt, and I guarantee you that those members of the board (now off the board and disgraced) consider themselves martyrs; the expenses that await the new board, and the real victims in all fo this--the children, are only a small price to pay for them to get their "message" across.

This is called social terrorism, and is extremely dangerous. It had seemed that the judges decision in that case was rather solid--a 300-page ass-reaming of any dipshits that tried to hold their local public education districts hostage by attempting to impose fundamental dogma into a place of education. This was a landmark precedent. How this happened in LA is beyond me, but I doubt it will last very long.
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
3
76
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Arkitech


This is the problems with these type of discussions, you can not apply the same rules on religion that you can on science. Science is a discipline based in observation and experimentation, religion is a practice of faith. Although the two are not mutually exclusive the approach is different. Billions of people on this planet have a spiritual inclination (likely some in your own families) and it's foolish to dismiss their beliefs as nothing more than antiquated superstitions. At the very least investigate something before you attempting to become the authority on what isn't real or factual.

Here's the amazing thing about science: anything can be quantified observed and experimented on. Studies have shown that there is no power in prayer, and none has ever given any reason to believe that any of the claims made by any religion are true.

Einstein said it best, when a politically motivated book was published titled "100 Scientists against Einstein" -- "If I was wrong, it would take only one"

Simply put, even if there was absolutely nobody on the planet who didn't believe, but there was still no evidence, the belief would still be irrational.


I have to state it again, that the rules of science can't be applied to religion. So to respond about your reply on the studying of prayers, that type of approach likely will not work. However let's examine why many feel the need to excercise some form of spirituality, I could say that we were created with this need within us but I'm sure I would be attacked with 80 replies after I hit refresh. So instead I will say many intelligent people (scientists included) have felt a need to fill what they define as a spiritual need. Also I'm sure familiar with the quote "there are no athiests in a foxhole". So even if you don't believe in God or creationism, how do you explain this inherent need in people to seek out a spiritual existence?

again, you're absolutely correct (bolded) Which is EXACTLY why religion (intelligent design) has absolutely no place in a scientific classroom. simple as that. Surely you agree with this, if you agree with what you have said


Yep, I stated that before. Teach science in science class, religion in church, etc...
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Arkitech


Good observation. The problem with a lot of religion is basically what you said "ignorance". Over the years I've known of quite a few people who claimed to be "devout" or "deeply religious" but clearly did'nt know much about the bible or religion they were associated with. Then there's the problem of many churches teaching wrong or misleading information, so I guess I can't really get too upset when people blow a gasket when they hear someone debating from a religious or spiritual standpoint. Fanatical people tend not to debate intelligently, so it's hard to take them seriously. I think some people here see me in that light, but I try to keep an open mind. Hopefully that comes across in my comments.

And therein lies the problem. I don't mean to bash religion, but as it is dependent on belief, it leads to die-hard believers, each one of them thinking their interpretation is the one truth. You would say that Church B has it all wrong, whereas church B certainly believes that your church is all wrong. Problem is, both rely on the exact same text, and both base their beliefs on the exact same structure and logic. It's not good for debate, sadly....

I've known a lot of extremely intelligent believers, and an equal number of mouth-breathing secularists. So, you'll find them on both sides.
 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
3
76
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: ArkitechThis is the problems with these type of discussions, you can not apply the same rules on religion that you can on science. Science is a discipline based in observation and experimentation, religion is a practice of faith. Although the two are not mutually exclusive the approach is different. Billions of people on this planet have a spiritual inclination (likely some in your own families) and it's foolish to dismiss their beliefs as nothing more than antiquated superstitions. At the very least investigate something before you attempting to become the authority on what is'nt real or factual.

For the most part I agree with your overall position in the above paragraph. However, since you will agree that Science is a completely different discipline, I hope you would also agree that a class that is focused on science should never present something unscientific as an alternative. If they are to discuss intelligent design, it should be the "before science came in and whooped its ass" in the same way spontaneous appearance of maggots on meat is handled.

I don't agree with your slant on ID but I agree that science class should be based on science. I definitely don't side with the thought that bible education or religion needs to be forced on people who don't want it.

...which is what ID is. that is not debatable.


Not true, belief in ID does'nt meant that I want to enforce it on others. In fact I don't think belief in ID means disbelief in evolution.
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,566
736
136
Originally posted by: Arkitech
In fact I don't think belief in ID means disbelief in evolution.

That's an odd contention, since the whole argument for ID is that the life we see around us is too complicated (eyeball and flagellum cited as examples) to have been produced by evolution, and therefore require an intelligent designer (who essentially created them as as complete works as they appear today).

The whole problem with evolution vs. creation debate is that believers often insist that science must conform to their beliefs. Requiring ID or creationism to be presented in a science makes as much sense as having evolution presented in a fundamentalist Sunday school. The "respect" for the differences between science and religion has to go both ways.
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Originally posted by: Arkitech
In fact I don't think belief in ID means disbelief in evolution.

That's an odd contention, since the whole argument for ID is that the life we see around us is too complicated (eyeball and flagellum cited as examples) to have been produced by evolution, and therefore require an intelligent designer (who essentially created them as as complete works as they appear today).

The whole problem with evolution vs. creation debate is that believers often insist that science must conform to their beliefs. Requiring ID or creationism to be presented in a science makes as much sense as having evolution presented in a fundamentalist Sunday school. The "respect" for the differences between science and religion has to go both ways.

thats not it at all... science doesnt have to conform to anyones beliefs. The problem is, that some questions are unanswerable by science. And that is a limitation of the scientific field, not a problem of the believers.

consider the premise...
Life was created.
Unfortunately the answer to that question is at best UNKNOWABLE.
However the simple fact remains that the statement is exactly either true or false.

If the answer is false, then science may be able to answer the question of the origins of life.
However if the answer is true, then science will never be able to answer the question about the origins of life.

Science is ill equipped to answer the question of origins IF a creator then exists. So many scientists use the scientific explanation of origins to deny that a creator exists... yet science should never have been used to explain origins until a creator has already been ruled out.

The problem is that no-one has stopped and asked the question IS SCIENCE THE PROPER FIELD TO TAKE ON THE ORIGINS ISSUE? and the answer is... MAYBE NOT.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
As broached by another poster above, is:

god = creator?

If not, which is greater? Did the creator create god? or vice versa?

And, of course, the ultimate conundrum, who/what created the creator?

This has probably been discussed ad infinitum, ad nauseum, but apparently hasn't prevented the ongoing discussion. I guess I'm looking for the official fundie position here.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: sao123
...
The problem is that no-one has stopped and asked the question IS SCIENCE THE PROPER FIELD TO TAKE ON THE ORIGINS ISSUE? and the answer is... MAYBE NOT.
If religion is the field, then there's not much left to be done. The followers will just accept it based on authority and faith.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Aharami
Citrix, i really really feel sorry for your children. They will grow up into very clueless human beings thanks to you

this is the tragedy of this thread.

though, hopefully, they will be able to learn something about life outside of his influence.

I have noticed that a lot of free-thinking kids these days have fundamentalist parents.
This gives me hope that the archaic, useless ideas of their parents will die with them. who know, though....
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
Why do people still believe in creationism? I know we shouldn't hate on people's beliefs, but some people are just stupid as fuck.

This is a major problem with the world, lack of respect for another person's opinion. If someone takes an opposite opinion of what you believe they must be stupid and un-educated.

Oh I see that you don't like Bush, you're an idiot.

What was that, you don't support abortion? You're a flaming idiot.

I can't believe you like the Lakers over the Celtics, someone get a rope and let's find a tree.


Honestly if you're so close minded where you need to insult someone over a difference of opinion maybe you're the stupid one.

Nobody is hating on "opinions" when they say that "creationists are stupid". It's not an opinion they hold, they're completely and blatantly ignoring FACTS AND EVIDENCE because it makes them feel UNCOMFORTABLE. They're cowards, and they're willingly ignorant, and that makes them STUPID.



First off it's never a good idea to classify an entire group of people as cowards and stupid. Considering there are billions of people who believe in creationism, to label them all in one particular fashion shows your ignorance. It also reeks of the racist and bigoted attitudes of people who try to portray an entire race of people in a negative light. Secondly evolution is a theory in the sense that it explains the origins of life. If you have concrete evidence that shows otherwise I will be happy to examine it.



Originally posted by: Citrix
Evolution is a THEORY not a fact. you knuckle-dragers seem to forget that.

Go back to church, and I mean that in the most demeaning way possible. Everything is a theory, that's the BEST status that an idea can have. "Theory" implies that it has data and proof, that it's logical, and that it doesn't contradict other fact and evidence supported theories. Anything that doesn't have enough proof is just an idea, and anything that has absolutely zero (or negative) proof is FAITH.

seriously, billions? I dispute that claim.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: rbV5
Secondly evolution is a theory in the sense that it explains the origins of life.

Get this; The theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with, nor says ANYTHING about the ORIGINS of life..period.

This point seems to be missed completely by a large number of people, so it bears repeating.

Is this a widely held scientific belief? I notice that many people here who support evolution have linked it with the origins of life.

I'm not sure how you could think they have anything to do with one another. I'm a Christian and I believe in evolution.

many people just don't understand science. and this why these kind of BS threads, RL public events keep cropping up.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: fierydemise
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: rbV5
Secondly evolution is a theory in the sense that it explains the origins of life.

Get this; The theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with, nor says ANYTHING about the ORIGINS of life..period.

This point seems to be missed completely by a large number of people, so it bears repeating.

Is this a widely held scientific belief? I notice that many people here who support evolution have linked it with the origins of life.
Obviously the origins of life are linked with evolution seeing as the latter cannot occur without the former however the theory of evolution deals only with how organisms evolved over time to form the biodiversity we see today. The theory of evolution is fully compatible with both the hypothesis that organic molecules spontaneously formed on Earth (see the Miller-Urey experiment) and the hypothesis of panspermia, the idea that life came first from somewhere else in the universe.

panspermia? seriously?

well, at least you're actually bringing up something that actually scientists really do debate. there is nothing about evolution that is, more or less, non-factual, but point of origin reamins a mighty question.

but...c'mon..panspermia? you're not one of "those," are you? :p