<p>Athiest much?</p>
<p>BITTER atheist :P</p>
<p>^ the chances are way skewed in that analysis. It doesn't take into account the multitude of religions out there.</p>
<p>pascal's wager has been shown to be completely stupid. you don't have "nothing to lose". you lose time, money, knowledge, and in some cases rights. why not believe in a crackpot spider god that sends you to eternal hell if you willingly kill a spider?</p>
<p>theists come up with the dumbest ideas</p>
<p>
[quote]
1) The "contents" of your uterus? That's all it would be to you? Most Americans would say here that Palin supports the government preventing you from taking human life, even if you had a hand in its creation. 48% of Americans in a May 2008 Gallup Poll say abortion (in general) is immoral, while 40% say it is fine morally. So you are in the minority here (your opinion is of course still welcome - I'm just saying).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Palin believes in the ban of abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. If she believes in the sanctity of life that strongly, I can respect that. My respect runs low when she announces Bristol's pregnancy like "she chose to have a baby." That wording to me, is a laughable and mocking. Like, suuure. You can have a choice...if the only decision is to HAVE IT. </p>
<p>Rationally, yes, that's all an unwanted baby is to me - contents of my uterus. If something were to happen though, I don't know what I'd do, but I would look into getting an abortion as an option. And that's all I want, I don't want abortions for all, I want an open option to not carry a baby to term.</p>
<p>To the Russia comments (but who is making them? Really? Besides Cindy McCain :rolleyes:)</p>
<p>“She also is near the North Pole, so she must also be friends with Santa Claus.” - Jon Stewart</p>
<p>"Alaska has mt Mckinkley, which makes America's closest point to space. that means she has SPACE policy experience." - Stephen Colbert.</p>
<p>Hey, I guess this thread is no longer about searching for intellectualism but attempting to demonstrate and practice it. :D</p>
<p>Trust me, I don't get the Russian proximity = foreign policy experience thing either.</p>
<p>Also, I fail to see how creationism has no evidence for it and how evolution is well-supported. Elaborate? Saying things like "theists are stupid" or "creationism is laughable" is rather empty when you lack evidence to say so. In keeping with this theme, I'll mention one piece of non-evidence for evolution. My biology text book made a big deal out of the Miller-Urey experiment, in which two scientists created what they assumed was an environment similar to that of a new earth, devoid of oxygen (like they could construct a clone of an earth that existed, they say, billions of years ago), sent a spark into it (simulating lightning), and creating amino acids. This, they said, was proof that life could form abiotically in an early earth. However, conceding the presence of ancient volcanoes which would release water vapor (and therefore oxygen, which makes this amino-acid-creating impossible), geochemists have shown that the experiment was not an accurate representation of early conditions. Additionally, had the amino acids been formed in the first place, no one has ever shown, even in an inaccurate experiment, that they could then form proteins and then functioning life. Also, amino acids are water-soluble, so the water on earth would have likely if not definitely prevented the formation of amino acids even without the free oxygen in the atmosphere and air. Why I find evolution-teaching in schools to be so academically irresponsible is because studies like these, which have been repeatedly discredited and shown to be impotent arguments for evolution, continue to be published in our textbooks and taught as if they were fact.</p>
<p>And yes, I just did that^ with your precious science. Mr. muffin, if I want to be exposed to brainwashing all I have to do is set foot in a school.</p>
<p>And CoffeeBreak, churches do NOT teach all you need to know about creationism. All that is usually taught is that it happened. I had to do my own research (because I was not satisfied with no evidence), and have found support, SCIENTIFIC and otherwise, to be unlimited for creationism.</p>
<p>Mr. muffin, while evolution is disprovable, the fact that creationsim is NOT disprovable again seems to indicate it might be correct. Not only that, but it can be fairly well proven with science, probability, reason, and a hint of philosophy (let's see, did I even reference the Bible once in all of that?).</p>
<p>Cheers to science and its amazing ability to point toward a Creator!</p>
<p>"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." </p>
<pre><code> —Albert Einstein
</code></pre>
<p>Just because evolution is disprovable doesn't prove that creationism exists. Its something that you have faith in. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet you conveniently skipped over my last, most important concern. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>my main concern is that of alienating people of other beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, one can reason that there must be a creator. But thats all that it leads to. How are you sure that your religion is the correct one? For all we know, the true creator/creators of the cosmos can have absolutely nothing to do with human religions.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Also, I fail to see how creationism has no evidence for it and how evolution is well-supported. Elaborate? Saying things like "theists are stupid" or "creationism is laughable" is rather empty when you lack evidence to say so.
[/QUOTE]
this is ironic, seeing that creationism has zero evidence pointing toward it.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
In keeping with this theme, I'll mention one piece of non-evidence for evolution.
[/QUOTE]
for the second time, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. so your whole paragraph does nothing to disprove it. but...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
My biology text book made a big deal out of the Miller-Urey experiment, in which two scientists created what they assumed was an environment similar to that of a new earth, devoid of oxygen (like they could construct a clone of an earth that existed, they say, billions of years ago), sent a spark into it (simulating lightning), and creating amino acids. This, they said, was proof that life could form abiotically in an early earth.
[/QUOTE]
you made it sound like they picked an arbitrary condition to perform the experiment under. no, evidence has confidently pointed toward what the conditions could have been billions of years ago. and the ocean back then was a soup of chemicals. it's not difficult to replicate it if they knew what was in it. also, they said nothing about their experiment PROVING anything, only showing evidence that it could have happened.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
However, conceding the presence of ancient volcanoes which would release water vapor (and therefore oxygen, which makes this amino-acid-creating impossible), geochemists have shown that the experiment was not an accurate representation of early conditions.
[/QUOTE]
oxygen gas and water have very different chemical properties. and i'd like to see a source showing that the conditions weren't accurate.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Additionally, had the amino acids been formed in the first place, no one has ever shown, even in an inaccurate experiment, that they could then form proteins and then functioning life.
[/QUOTE]
nobody could prove that the earth revolved around the sun several hundred years ago, but that doesn't make the claim false. there are hypothesis' about these situations though. look up "coacervates"</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Also, amino acids are water-soluble, so the water on earth would have likely if not definitely prevented the formation of amino acids even without the free oxygen in the atmosphere and air.
[/QUOTE]
<p>
[QUOTE]
Why I find evolution-teaching in schools to be so academically irresponsible is because studies like these, which have been repeatedly discredited and shown to be impotent arguments for evolution, continue to be published in our textbooks and taught as if they were fact.
[/QUOTE]
this isn't evolution, and it hasn't been discredited yet. also, it isn't taught as facts. science books will talk of them as theories or hypothesis', not proven ideas.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
And yes, I just did that^ with your precious science. Mr. muffin, if I want to be exposed to brainwashing all I have to do is set foot in a school.
[/QUOTE]
schools will sometimes brainwash, but it is inevitable in a church</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
And CoffeeBreak, churches do NOT teach all you need to know about creationism. All that is usually taught is that it happened. I had to do my own research (because I was not satisfied with no evidence), and have found support, SCIENTIFIC and otherwise, to be unlimited for creationism.
[/QUOTE]
this is exactly what i mean when i say brainwash. they tell you to blindly accept something without telling you why.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Mr. muffin, while evolution is disprovable, the fact that creationsim is NOT disprovable again seems to indicate it might be correct. Not only that, but it can be fairly well proven with science, probability, reason, and a hint of philosophy (let's see, did I even reference the Bible once in all of that?).
[/QUOTE]
if it's not disprovable, it's not science. and science has been the only reliable method to find truth. all you've said so far is "science can't explain the origin of life so god must have created everything." a claim from ignorance isn't a claim worth considering. btw, philosophy is a lot of BS and what probabilities and reasoning are you talking about?</p>
<p>Without SaltyBruin as a dissident, I doubt we would have much discussion...</p>
<p>mr muffin wins</p>
<p>Jeez, I was making reference to ONE oft-cited piece of evidence for evolution. I have read several books about the faults of evolution and of its more shaky 'merits' and have come to my overall conclusion about its fallibility. I cannot possible retell the thousands of pages I have read on the topic in this space or environment. It would be more like a month-long or course-long lecture.</p>
<p>"this is ironic, seeing that creationism has zero evidence pointing toward it."</p>
<p>You haven't read or seen or experienced any, perhaps, but oh yes there is! And that's why there are so darn many publications on the matter. Unfortunately they are under-read by the population at large because they deal with Christianity in the first place. Everyone is exposed to the evidence for evolution, but few are shown the merits of creationism.</p>
<p>"this isn't evolution, and it hasn't been discredited yet. also, it isn't taught as facts. science books will talk of them as theories or hypothesis', not proven ideas"</p>
<p>It is an evidence for evolution. Many others have been discredited also (heck, all of them), and the theory of evolution is perpetuated by stubborn atheistic scientists. Many prominent scientists have studied and later rejected evolution because of its preposterity, and most of these men and women are later cast out of the science community by those who refuse to face the evidence and let go of such a long-held theory that was starting to look so good. And my textbook specifically said that although evolution is still called 'theory,' it is as good as fact, and most on this forum seem to treat it as such also.</p>
<p>As for alienating other religions, Coffee, the teaching of evolution does alienate many religions, and only serves the agenda of those who put a blind faith in and are brainwashed into believing the religion of atheism. Besides, are we teaching to please the most people or to teach truth? And, while you cannot support your claim to the contrary, there is more evidence for creationism than for macroevolution as a means of creation. Can anyone please tell me a good reason to doubt creationism?</p>
<p>"schools will sometimes brainwash, but it is inevitable in a church"</p>
<p>if all institutions brainwash, does the practice even matter? Is it not a moot point then, that churches give information without scientific evidence, when schools do the same? </p>
<p>"it's not difficult to replicate it if they knew what was in it. also, they said nothing about their experiment PROVING anything, only showing evidence that it could have happened"</p>
<p>Except that it is NOT evidence it could have happened because the environment was inaccurate. There was water vapor in the air from volcanoes, say geochemists. The UV light rays from the sun, say atmospheric scientists, cause disassociation of water molecules in the atmosphere, causing hydrogen to be released into the upper atmosphere, and allowing oxygen gas to remain in our lower atmosphere. Thus, you have oxygen GAS in the old earth model, just where it can destroy a good number of theories surrounding abiogenesis.</p>
<p>Would you like some more faulty evidence for evolution? Darwin's finches prove microevolution. When environmental conditions changed in the Galapagos, finches' beaks adapted over generations to make their survival chances greater. These finches never developed into a new species. In fact, after rain came again and environment returned to near-former conditions, the beaks gradually changed back. It seems God gave his creation the ability to change with a changing world, within their own species. There is not a single instance of species becoming other species that we can see for ourselves.</p>
<p>There are no definitive "transitional fossils." All we get from scientists is that because we have extinct species, and then a similar living species, there must have been an intermediary one that connects them. Rather, structural differences are nothing more significant than evidence that the different species have a common creator.</p>
<p>Thanks for noticing, Emmeline. Notice that without my dissidence y'all would be throwing out generalities and unsubstantiated claims about creationism and hailing evolution without evidence for it, and intellectualism wouldn't be manifesting. Oh wait - that's still happening. Read a book then get back to me. Attend church for a year and then get back to me. I don't mean just sit in the congregation - go to the educational classes they teach between, before, and after services. Read books by Christian scholars. See what's out there. Then cast your judgement independent of the one-sided teachings of a couple biology textbooks and teachers you have encountered in your secular education.</p>
<p>I'd like to quote Australian molecular biologist and M.D., Michael Denton. He is a self-described agnostic and has not prior allegiance or formal teaching in any organized religion.</p>
<p>"The concept of the continuity of nature [uninterrupted macroevolution from common ancestors] has existed in the mind of man <em>never</em> in the facts of nature. In a very real sense, therefore, advocacy of the doctrine of continuity has always necessitated a retreat from pure empiricism, ad contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach....The idea that it was the opponetns of evolution [e.g. creationsists] who were blinded by the error of <em>a priorism</em> is one of he great myths of the twentieth-century biology.</p>
<p>-from Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp.353-355.</p>
<p>Regarding the Miller-Urey experiment and textbooks giving undue credence to it, I just found this gem:
<a href="http://www.fairscience.org/images/Miller_Urey.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.fairscience.org/images/Miller_Urey.pdf</a></p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Jeez, I was making reference to ONE oft-cited piece of evidence for evolution. I have read several books about the faults of evolution and of its more shaky 'merits' and have come to my overall conclusion about its fallibility. I cannot possible retell the thousands of pages I have read on the topic in this space or environment. It would be more like a month-long or course-long lecture.
[/QUOTE]
again, the origin of life has NOTHING to do with evolution.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
"this is ironic, seeing that creationism has zero evidence pointing toward it."</p>
<p>You haven't read or seen or experienced any, perhaps, but oh yes there is! And that's why there are so darn many publications on the matter. Unfortunately they are under-read by the population at large because they deal with Christianity in the first place. Everyone is exposed to the evidence for evolution, but few are shown the merits of creationism.
[/QUOTE]
then educate me. tell me what evidence there is for creationism</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
"this isn't evolution, and it hasn't been discredited yet. also, it isn't taught as facts. science books will talk of them as theories or hypothesis', not proven ideas"</p>
<p>It is an evidence for evolution. Many others have been discredited also (heck, all of them), and the theory of evolution is perpetuated by stubborn atheistic scientists. Many prominent scientists have studied and later rejected evolution because of its preposterity, and most of these men and women are later cast out of the science community by those who refuse to face the evidence and let go of such a long-held theory that was starting to look so good. And my textbook specifically said that although evolution is still called 'theory,' it is as good as fact, and most on this forum seem to treat it as such also.
[/QUOTE]
evolution IS a fact. species change over time. you see it in fossil evidence, you see it in bone structures, and even now antibiotics are becoming less effective because bacteria have evolved to become more resistant. the only debate about it is HOW evolution happens. science points toward natural selection.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
As for alienating other religions, Coffee, the teaching of evolution does alienate many religions, and only serves the agenda of those who put a blind faith in and are brainwashed into believing the religion of atheism. Besides, are we teaching to please the most people or to teach truth? And, while you cannot support your claim to the contrary, there is more evidence for creationism than for macroevolution as a means of creation. Can anyone please tell me a good reason to doubt creationism?
[/QUOTE]
of course it alienates many religions. science and religion do NOT go together. also, atheism isn't a religion because it's not a belief. it's a lack of belief. good reason to doubt creationism: no evidence.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
"schools will sometimes brainwash, but it is inevitable in a church"</p>
<p>if all institutions brainwash, does the practice even matter? Is it not a moot point then, that churches give information without scientific evidence, when schools do the same?
[/QUOTE]
there are varying degrees of brainwash, so yes. it does matter. and when i said brainwash in schools, it's usually the teachers that do it, not faulty school systems; although history textbooks are known to be too patriotic.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
"it's not difficult to replicate it if they knew what was in it. also, they said nothing about their experiment PROVING anything, only showing evidence that it could have happened"</p>
<p>Except that it is NOT evidence it could have happened because the environment was inaccurate. There was water vapor in the air from volcanoes, say geochemists. The UV light rays from the sun, say atmospheric scientists, cause disassociation of water molecules in the atmosphere, causing hydrogen to be released into the upper atmosphere, and allowing oxygen gas to remain in our lower atmosphere. Thus, you have oxygen GAS in the old earth model, just where it can destroy a good number of theories surrounding abiogenesis.
[/QUOTE]
the amount of oxygen gas was trivial. it's not until photosynthetic organisms evolved did oxygen actually start to make a difference. and by then the forming of proteins in the ocean did not matter.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Would you like some more faulty evidence for evolution? Darwin's finches prove microevolution. When environmental conditions changed in the Galapagos, finches' beaks adapted over generations to make their survival chances greater. These finches never developed into a new species. In fact, after rain came again and environment returned to near-former conditions, the beaks gradually changed back. It seems God gave his creation the ability to change with a changing world, within their own species. There is not a single instance of species becoming other species that we can see for ourselves.
[/QUOTE]
well first, the division of species is more or less arbitrary. second, what are you talking about? why would the finches change into a completely new species if their beaks were all that needed to change to allow them to survive? and yes, we can see bacteria evolve. but the slower the reproductive rate, the longer it will take for a species to evolve. that's why we haven't seen any noticeable change in mammals, etc. except in fossils.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
There are no definitive "transitional fossils." All we get from scientists is that because we have extinct species, and then a similar living species, there must have been an intermediary one that connects them. Rather, structural differences are nothing more significant than evidence that the different species have a common creator.
[/QUOTE]
uhh... how did you come to THAT conclusion? 0_o</p>
<p>there ARE transitional fossils btw</p>
<p>here's something i found amusing in another forum:
[QUOTE]
God as a designer: he's either an idiot, or for a deity, remarkably hard-up when it comes to paying for design plans. He uses the same basic body plan for fish, quadrupeds, bipeds, birds, etc. Why should us bipeds have to put up with a skeletal structure that designed for walking on all fours? Did God force us into second-hand body-plans post-fall, just so that we could enjoy the delights of back-pain?</p>
<p>Why do we have sub-optimal eye design, especially compared to the octopus? Why do we have such stupid "programming" restrictions in the articulation of our arms? Did we not itch in that impossible-to-reach spot on our backs, pre-fall? Why are our genitals so exposed to damage?</p>
<p>Why do we hurt, damage and even kill ourselves when we fall over? Was the ground softer pre-fall? Why do our bones break, limbs dislocate, etc? Why do we need to eat? Why do we need to breathe?</p>
<p>How about not using the same tube for eating and breathing? I gotta say, any engineer who designed that today, leaving the obvious flaw of being able to choke simply by eating, would be fired.</p>
<p>If you can point out to me the guy responsible for all of this, I will not bow down and worship... I will laugh because he has made one hell of a joke. As an exercise in what physical laws can produce, the human life is a stroke of genius. As an example of what a deity can spontaneously 'create', it's pathetic.</p>
<p>Simply put: if the human body was specifically designed, the designer was on crack. An idiot. A fool. A complete and total moron. There is no "glory" in giving the so-called pinnacle of your creation inherent flaws that most of the "lesser" creatures you made don't themselves posses. Anyone who thinks human eyes are "intelligently designed" when birds of prey can see clearly for miles and octopi can self-correct for the sort of lens flaws that plague most humans is a moron. Anyone who thinks using the same tube for breathing and eating is an example of "masterful" design is an idiot.</p>
<p>Your Jehovah is an incompetent boob if we are the result of his direct and special creation.</p>
<p>The only thing impressive about the human body in terms of design is that it actually works at all. The only miracle is that we haven't all developed cancer, don't all have vision problems or appendicitis, and don't all have birth defects resulting from the inherently flawed DNA replication cycle.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>"again, the origin of life has NOTHING to do with evolution."</p>
<p>I know it doesn't. It was God. So are you saying life did not evolve? Anyways, I believe I've been trashing macroevolution as well.</p>
<p>"evolution IS a fact. species change over time. you see it in fossil evidence, you see it in bone structures, and even now antibiotics are becoming less effective because bacteria have evolved to become more resistant. the only debate about it is HOW evolution happens. science points toward natural selection."</p>
<p>Uh-huh, yes, and I agree! Microevolution lives! I already addressed that! But show me evidence for macroevolution?</p>
<p>"there are varying degrees of brainwash, so yes. it does matter. and when i said brainwash in schools, it's usually the teachers that do it, not faulty school systems; although history textbooks are known to be too patriotic."</p>
<p>Do you read?</p>
<p>"evolution IS a fact."</p>
<p>I rest my case about the "theory" label. This product of our great education system just proved my point. Thank you!</p>
<p>"well first, the division of species is more or less arbitrary. second, what are you talking about? why would the finches change into a completely new species if their beaks were all that needed to change to allow them to survive? and yes, we can see bacteria evolve. but the slower the reproductive rate, the longer it will take for a species to evolve. that's why we haven't seen any noticeable change in mammals, etc. except in fossils."</p>
<p>Not really. We have definitions for species. Fossils??! Show me the transitional fossils. Like I already said, we have nothing but unconnected species, living and extinct. No clear transitional fossils exist. We can see micro evolution, and we've seen it regress. We cannot fairly exptrapolate to macroevolution.</p>
<p>"of course it alienates many religions. science and religion do NOT go together. also, atheism isn't a religion because it's not a belief. it's a lack of belief. good reason to doubt creationism: no evidence."</p>
<p>This is such bull. Atheists love this, but in reality, you believe in things. Atheism is a belief in the absense of a God, and is based on at least as much FAITH as any other religion. You seem to be arguing pretty hard for a BELIEF! I haven't heard evidence against creation except by saying there is no evidence for it. And that's a delightful little rant you posted from someone else, but it is substance-less. Our bodies are beautifully made for our type of life, and if there are flaws, maybe they're a result of your precious microevolution that changes species after creation. Creation WAS cursed after the fall, so the mocking of the possibility is judgmental. You have faith in evolution and natural selection, I have faith in God. And are you really jealous of an octopus? We and the octopus are made for different things, but that really cracked me up.</p>
<p>And yes science and religion go together. Yahooo's Einstein quote on the previous page was perfect. God created science, which is his tool for us to discover more about him and his creation. That's my best guess at how the two go together. It's unfair to find the two mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>And I can't give you a rundown of the evidence for creationism. Maybe if we had a chance to have a long one-on-one talk I could go through it, but I'm hardly God's most talented debater and I really don't have the energy or time (we should've started this mid-summer when college wasn't about to start). Go read some frickin' books, please, and broaden your knowledge. I've researched both sides and for this I can make an informed decision. I doubt you've ever read a book by a Christian author on a Christian topic, Mr. muffin. Try Timothy Keller, Dan Story, and/or Lee Strobel. All very much intellectuals in their approach to analyzing the merits or Christianity. I've suffered through Dawkins and Sam Harris. Try going the other way for research and new opinions and evidence.</p>