|
LakeMaryLady
Orlando, FL
|
I just would like to know why is there is all this hostility over this issue. I think most of the people writing these post must be atheist. If you don't believe in God, that's your right. But I don't see what harm is caused by children learning their is more than one opinion about the existence of man. Christians also pay taxes and I think if their point of view cannot be heard in the public school, then they should be able to take their money from the public school system and let it be used to fund a parochial school for there children, I feel that's only fair, why should they spend their money for a school system that only sees the atheist point of view.What's wrong with teaching both points of view and letting the children decide for themselves what to believe?
|
Since: Jan 08
Park Ridge, IL
|
Please wait...
Hedonist wrote: <quoted text>
I've watch you posts for some time and I know you understand that science does not equate to atheism. So your statement is evidence of your bigotry and willingness to bear false witness whenever it suits your agenda.
You are right though, no one is going to "change sides". But a few might actually learn something about science. They might actually learn that science is not the opposite of religion. Science neither supports or denys religious tenets.
Your ranting do nothing to help this conversation acheive any sort of understanding. In fact you seem to go out of your way to prevent intelligent conversation.
All this arguing is pure obfuscation. The current theory of biological evolution will not go away until something better comes along. It doesn't matter how imperfect it is, there is nothing else available.
The only thing the theistic side needs to do to actually be considered for inclusion is show how their theory of ????(creationism/ID/whatever) supports all of the current evidence AND provides scientists with better predictive capabilities. That's it in a nutshell. Normally, it was my intention to simply fade out and just let you go on with your life like I said. But since you and MatthewM were kind enough not to produce insults, I will respond to this one last time. I think both of you are absolutely right and I appologize to both of you as I do to the few here that were acutally trying to solve this in a debate. But I stand by what I said before and that is that my intent was to show that it will not be solved here. I will admit that I played both sides of the field as it were but because I really believe that both sides have valid points. But as I said before both sides are so entrenched in their views that neither side was going to conceide. As I have said time and again, my intent has never to been to prove anything other than to say that a lot of what I have seen here is arrogance, nothing more. Note that I said I have seen a lot of arrogance I did not say everyone was arrogant. So am I arrogant in what I did? If that were the case, I would not have been able to see both sides of the issue and agree with that position. Scientists want facts and there is nothing wrong with that but they have to realize and often do that science is about observation. But sadly I think that there are times that they go a little more on the faith side. Not often but sometimes. The point is that there really is no reason why people should be this entrenched and I suppose that it saddens me quite a bit that things got to that exent but it was required to prove what I was saying. But now I wish to move on as I have proven the point that I was trying to make and really have nothing more to add other than what I ready have. As I said believe what you want. If you think that I am an idiot, why would I care as I will probably never meet you again? If not, that is fine and thanks for the compliment but again this conversation will be forgotten and so will all the info in it. I wish everyone well in your future. Take care!
|
|
“It's Evolution Baby.....”
Since: Feb 07
Allentown Pa
|
Please wait...
RSMHobbit wrote: ......they are going to convince anyone else by giving information that they got in a book somewhere (either science or religious) is waisting their time .....
THIS was my first premise when I came into the topic as I knew it was a waist time debating. Still can't grasp that whole 'waist' vs.'waste' thing, huh?
|
|
“Dor sho gha!”
Level 1
Since: Apr 08
Iowa City, IA
|
Please wait...
Good News wrote: <quoted text>
If I were you I wouldn't post no more. According to evolution life forms inprove. You got it! If you think it will help "inprove" the board...
|
|
“Dor sho gha!”
Level 1
Since: Apr 08
Iowa City, IA
|
Please wait...
Steve wrote: <quoted text>Sweet. Seems well chosen. Now I'm going to have to put some music on to get that song out of my head... *loud rumbling belly laughter can be heard from deep in outer space* Dor sho gha! Don't look at me like that! I have communicators on my ship.
|
|
“Dor sho gha!”
Level 1
Since: Apr 08
Iowa City, IA
|
Please wait...
RSMHobbit wrote: <quoted text>
Normally, it was my intention to simply fade out and just let you go on with your life like I said. But since you and MatthewM were kind enough not to produce insults, I will respond to this one last time.
I think both of you are absolutely right and I appologize to both of you as I do to the few here that were acutally trying to solve this in a debate. But I stand by what I said before and that is that my intent was to show that it will not be solved here.
I will admit that I played both sides of the field as it were but because I really believe that both sides have valid points. But as I said before both sides are so entrenched in their views that neither side was going to conceide. As I have said time and again, my intent has never to been to prove anything other than to say that a lot of what I have seen here is arrogance, nothing more. Note that I said I have seen a lot of arrogance I did not say everyone was arrogant.
So am I arrogant in what I did? If that were the case, I would not have been able to see both sides of the issue and agree with that position. Scientists want facts and there is nothing wrong with that but they have to realize and often do that science is about observation. But sadly I think that there are times that they go a little more on the faith side. Not often but sometimes.
The point is that there really is no reason why people should be this entrenched and I suppose that it saddens me quite a bit that things got to that exent but it was required to prove what I was saying. But now I wish to move on as I have proven the point that I was trying to make and really have nothing more to add other than what I ready have. As I said believe what you want. If you think that I am an idiot, why would I care as I will probably never meet you again? If not, that is fine and thanks for the compliment but again this conversation will be forgotten and so will all the info in it.
I wish everyone well in your future. Take care! I knew you would come slinking back like the tah'Qeq baktag you are!
|
|
“It's Evolution Baby.....”
Since: Feb 07
Allentown Pa
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
LakeMaryLady wrote: What's wrong with teaching both points of view and letting the children decide for themselves what to believe? Some people believe whites are the superior race, do we let children listen to the KKK and then decide who's right? Some people think they can drive just fine while drunk or high, should we let them teach your kids that view in Driver's Ed and let the kids decide? There is scientific fact and there is belief in the supernatural. Stop making it seem like the two are on equal footing.
|
|
MatthewM
Raven, VA
|
LakeMaryLady wrote: I just would like to know why is there is all this hostility over this issue.... But I don't see what harm is caused by children learning their is more than one opinion about the existence of man. I understand your appeal to fairness, but in K-12 science classes students need to be taught about what is currently the best known science. There is little enough time as it is to cover the necessary topics. LakeMaryLady wrote: What's wrong with teaching both points of view and letting the children decide for themselves what to believe? High school students don't have the training or knowledge to properly evaluate creationism vs. evolution. What should be taught in science class are the theories that have passed muster, and for biology this means teaching the theory of evolution. In chemistry class, should alchemy also be taught? Of course not! Alchemy is unscientific, just like creationism, a global flood, etc.
|
|
|
“as she bears, lads.. FIRE!!!”
Level 1
Since: Mar 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
LakeMaryLady wrote: I just would like to know why is there is all this hostility over this issue. I think most of the people writing these post must be atheist. If you don't believe in God, that's your right. But I don't see what harm is caused by children learning their is more than one opinion about the existence of man.
Christians also pay taxes and I think if their point of view cannot be heard in the public school, then they should be able to take their money from the public school system and let it be used to fund a parochial school for there children, I feel that's only fair, why should they spend their money for a school system that only sees the atheist point of view.What's wrong with teaching both points of view and letting the children decide for themselves what to believe? In the short sense I must agree with you. However I see some degree of difficulty here. Which religious belief would we teach along side those "athiest" beliefs? Should we perhaps try for one a day? Sort of switch hit with history and have a theme? And while we're at it why should people who do not have children pay for a school they don't use? That is the worst travisty of all. In retrospect the founding fathers decided that government should stay out of peoples churches and homes. So have at it, teach what you will(at home) and that shall be the whole of the law. be well.
|
|
“I am evolving as fast as I can”
Since: Jan 08
Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Littlewolf wrote: <quoted text>
????????
some small local area receives an input of energy this could cause disorder to stop or decrease.???
Wouldn't this violate the Law?
As opposed to a Thoery, this is a LAW.
Whoa, to believe what you propose, that is a leap of faith. ROFL! Of course you just demonstrated that aside from not understanding Evolution, you also don't understand Thermodynamics, and to top it all off you have a really poor understanding of Science. A 'Law' doesn't top a theory :-), this isn't civics class, it's science. A law is part a theory that describes, usually mathematically, how a theory works. For example within the Theory of Gravity are certain laws that mathematically explain the specifics of the attraction between two bodies. The 'laws' of thermodynamics, that you obviously don't understand, are part of of the Theory of Thermodynamics. Please get educated before continuing to post because you are doing yourself and your 'cause' a disservice by repeating such oft-debunked nonsense.
|
|
Since: Jan 08
Park Ridge, IL
|
Please wait...
Feklahr wrote: <quoted text>
I knew you would come slinking back like the tah'Qeq baktag you are! Well we both know I am an idiot so I just could not help myself. Please continue with with your character assination and prove my entire original post that much more right. So from now on all I am going to do is agree with everything you say since that is what you want to hear.
|
|
Richard Dawkins Fan
Sacramento, CA
|
Christians are more ignorant and dangerous that the Taliban. Just the Taliban are easy to spot with the rags around their head.
|
|
GatorBUILT
Charlotte, NC
|
Littlewolf wrote: <quoted text>
Science supports the Belief in God more every day, try reading the book. Science NEVER concerns itself with the supernaural...EVER...this is just more bible-bale that makes YOU Folls think there is a debate...there is NONE...te reality of evokution is desribed by thre Theory of Evolution...PERIOD...NO supernatural forces are considered or involved...so quit deluding yourself...Oh wait...that's impossible...just stop posting nonsense...it will make your miserable life easier...if you bothered to read yur typical fundy sites, they'l tell you it's pointless to argue as SCIENCE always wins where science is the subject...keep your faith...scince doens't care about that...some of the TOP evolutionary biologists do this daily...I suggest you send a message to them asking how they do it, as trying to delete evolution or ToE is simply the most absurd concept in human endeavor.
|
|
“I am evolving as fast as I can”
Since: Jan 08
Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now
|
Please wait...
RSMHobbit wrote: A. The scientific community would tell the religious community that their views were unscientific and as a result they were incorrect. Half right. The scientific community does not say they are incorrect, we say that their views are not provable and therefor not science. RSMHobbit wrote: B. The religious community would tell the scientific community that they were out to attack and distroy their faith. Again untrue! The religious community is threatened by science and claims that science is going to destroy their faith -- the reality is most scientists do not address this issue at all. RSMHobbit wrote: C. Both sides would get so entrenched by arrogance that they would start to attack each other with insults and the topic would end up going no where fast. Yes, you can find some examples of this, but like both groups, most are respectful and communicate without the need for insults and abusive comments. I blieve that if people have this conversation face-to-face the incidents of insults and abuse would be less -- the medium is influencing the content of the message as well. RSMHobbit wrote: THIS was my first premise when I came into the topic as I knew it was a waist time debating. After I had proven my point I was content to leave. But lo and behold just as I was checking the last message, here comes Chipfle/GatorBuilt. As I looked at his messages I could tell he was like a rabid dog looking for a piece of meat so I gave him exactly what he wanted to hear in order to continue to have him prove the point that I originally made at the start.
So I have a question for all of you out there...
Did either side convince you to change your views at all? Christians, are you now athiests? Atheists, have you now embraced religion? I doubt it becuase no one was going to change their views even if they were wrong.
It proved my point; almost all of you are too entrenched to change. And looking back at all of the posts on this site I have come to one conculsion...
Opinions are like A--holes, everyone has one and no one thinks their's stinks.
--Fin-- You ran your little experiment in a pretty poor fashion. Any self-respecting scientist will say that interacting the way you did violated your premise and hence your results are not valid. In any event you came on here with an expectation and you helped yourself along the way to making it so. Hope you feel proud of yourself. You do realize you have posted was nothing more than your opinion, and it certainly meets your own definition. In my humble opinion you are also well entrenched and your conclusion are drawn on the minority. But since you managed to meet your own expectations, I would 'expect' nothing less.
|
|
Since: Feb 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
parent wrote: It gets down to who you believe God or Scientists. And as scientists are constantly revising their words with extra new findings, I believe it is wiser to stay with the one who never changes his word. Over 11,000 U.S. clergy have gone on record as having no problem with both believing in God *and* accepting the best available science, including evolution. So your painting the issue as an "either/or" is the fallacy of a false dichotomy.
|
|
Richard Dawkins Fan
Sacramento, CA
|
Judged:
1
While you fools debate basic biology, the rest of the Western World are using that biology to get ahead of us in their understanding of Genetics, Medicine and Human Behavior. Without understanding Evolution you can not achieve anything in Bio Sciences or even Politics. Read the Selfish Gene…. Most of you follow ignorant foolish preachers with no formal education and who are more brainwashed than a full blown Moonie.
|
|
Since: Feb 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
Littlewolf wrote: The most simple one celled animal on this planet has a DNA code as long as 1000 sets of encyclopedias, yet you want people to believe life "just happened". No one here has yet claimed that the first *cell* "just happened". The first *living thing* did not have to be as complicated as the most simple *current* single-celled organism. In addition, a great deal depends on how you define "life", which is not as cut and dried as you might think.
|
|
Since: Feb 08
Tampa, FL
|
Please wait...
Littlewolf wrote: some small local area receives an input of energy this could cause disorder to stop or decrease.???
Wouldn't this violate the Law? No. *** Littlewolf wrote: As opposed to a Thoery, this is a LAW. Do you know what the word "law" means in science? It doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. *** Littlewolf wrote: Whoa, to believe what you propose, that is a leap of faith. If the Law actually applied in the way you appear to think it applies, it would be impossible for an egg cell to develop into a far more complex adult organism.
|
|
Richard Dawkins Fan
Sacramento, CA
|
A delusional bunch of Christian Conservatives, Bush being their puppet, have ruined America in the last 8 years. Bow down to the real leaders of the Christian Church. Rupert Murdoch is the Pope and Roger Ailes the bishop. With Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity being the preachers/brainwashers. Thank goodness that John McCain wont start to pander to this bunch…. Wait I think he already has…..
|
|
Richard Dawkins Fan
Sacramento, CA
|
Put some oil in water and shake and you can Imagine how the first cells started to form. Take Chemistry you idiot Christians.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Sagittarius
