[Bobboau]

ZmaN, ok after examining sevral aspects of your profile, namely your sig and a few pages of your last few posts, I have determined that you are in fact serious, I found it hard to beleive that you've been here for nearly a year and kept under my radar all this time, but such a thing is not unheard of.

in my origonal post I was my comments were in regard to general tendancies I have noticed, in the past when people have refered to the creator generaly speaking the name they give is God, even though God, Jesus, and 'The Holy Spirit' are technicaly the same deity more or less, so the names can be used interchangable, it's just generaly one name is used more oftine in certan situations that other, the name "God" 'The Father' is usualy used when describeing God 'the creator of the universe' as opposed to Jesus 'the son'. this tendancy coupled with the rediculus claims you were putting forth and the rediculus manner in wich you were presenting them AND the fact that I never noticed such behaviour in the past led me to, falsely, conclude that you were jokeing, I now know that I was in error, so let us begin this colorful mery-go-round of death....
nu-uh


...perhapes I should elaborate, you claim that evolution is circular logic, but is it not your own beleife system wich is founded on a book who's authority comes from the fact that it is the written word of God, when in fact the claim that it is the writen word of God does not come from God directly but indirectly through said book and the organisation(s) wich gain power from your faith in it. it would be like me to say I am God, and when you chanlenge me on such a claim I defend it by saying "do you not beleive the word of God?! I am GOD!". you can only accept creation if you beleive it to begin with as it is incapable of standing on it's own. but who knows perhaps I am once again in error, as has been demonstraited in this very thread I am capable of makeing false conclusions, give me some evidence of creation, something that would show the process in action, something on the order of the classical highschool fruit fly experiments (exept suportinf creation rather than evolution obviusly). or actualy, how old do you beleive the earth to be and why?
oh, and bring your frends, your going to need them.

[Turambar]

oh, and bring your frends, your going to need them.

yeah, he probably will because it seems like its everyone vs him
i'm afraid im going to sit this one out.  he doesnt need me and you trying to tear down his belief structure simultaneously

[Black Wolf]

(for example, there is a very good fossil record for equines, and macroevolution can also be shown by fruit fly breed)

There're much better records for Brachiopods, Bivalves and Echinoids. But since they're not as nice on documentaries or the cover of magaxzines (like horses), they never get mentioned. Tis a shame, because since the fossils are so common, and the sediment layers they're found in are generally so well defined, it's quantifiable stuff. You can watch as outlines change, width/length ratios, rib and ornamentation growth, plus as the sediment around them changes... a good sedimentary/paleo dataset is ****ing fascinating.

[Mars]

Is it bad I beleive that God started eveloution (i.e. created man through eveloution)?

[karajorma]

Whatever you believe is your own choice no matter how outlandish it is (not that I'm saying your particular belief is outlandish). The only thing anyone can take issue with is how you express those beliefs. Whether God exists is not a matter for science at all. It's a matter of philosophy. Whether in some way he set up the universe so that humans would evolve is similarly not a matter for science. You can always push God's intervention in creation far back enough that science can't touch it.

The problem is that some people then claim that if we don't need God to explain how humans arose then we don't need God at all. Therefore instead of having faith that God is needed as something other than the creator they atempt to discredit the scientific explaination with specious arguments like Intelligent Design.

As long as you don't attempt to claim science is wrong my argument with you is merely a philosophical one. I can't prove God doesn't exist and you can't prove he does. So why argue that either side is "bad"? Believe what you want as neither position really have anything to do with science.

[CP5670]

[WMCoolmon]

ZmaN, if/when you post the pages off your science book, do you think you can post the title/edition of the book as well?

[Shade]

I bet it would be an interesting read. In the 'laugh or cry' sort of way. The crazy thing is none of this should really be an issue, evolution and creationism are not actually at odds at all unless you really want them to be. Hopefully some creationist will eventually grow (or evolve? ) a brain and realize this, and put an end to this nonsense. But right now that seems like wishful thinking.

[aldo_14]

Is it bad I beleive that God started eveloution (i.e. created man through eveloution)?

It'd be bad to teach it as science. 

That applies to any form of creationism, however veiled, because it relies on something outside science (the supernatural).  That doesn't make science incompatible with religion, it just means we shouldn't portray religion as science, and people shouldn't seek to invalidate science because it might contradict religion (which is what ID effectively is).   It's worth always remembering that ID came about as a way to push biblical creationism into the school system and particularly the science classroom.  I have nothing against ID being taught, so long as it is taught as and in the context of religious education, alongside other creation stories/myths from other religions.

But in any case, I'm not going to say your belief is bad, or wrong, because it'd be hypocritical.  The very existence of God is outside the bounds of science, because sciences deals with the natural and not supernatural, and any arguement or reason I could make for arguing over it would be grounded on personal opinion on the supernatural i.e. unknowable.  Albeit it is worth remembering that evolution doesn't need (a) God to work, if you're thinking natural selection & sexual selection isn't enough.

[karajorma]

I have nothing against ID being taught, so long as it is taught as and in the context of religious education, alongside other creation stories/myths from other religions.

I would be against it. ID has no place at all. Creationism, fine but ID is nothing but a hollow shell and should be discarded as such. It isn't religion and it isn't science. It actually has less validity in RE class than flying spagetti monster which at least qualifies as a belief.

Teach the kids what the bible says in RE class if you wish but ID has no place anywhere.

[aldo_14]

I have nothing against ID being taught, so long as it is taught as and in the context of religious education, alongside other creation stories/myths from other religions.

I would be against it. ID has no place at all. Creationism, fine but ID is nothing but a hollow shell and should be discarded as such. It isn't religion and it isn't science. It actually has less validity in RE class than flying spagetti monster which at least qualifies as a belief.

Teach the kids what the bible says in RE class if you wish but ID has no place anywhere.

That's kind of the point, though.  If they taught ID in RE, then it becomes obvious what it is.  You pointed it out loads of times - ID has no form or subtance, no definition.  Ergo, if we teach it in RE, it ends up being taught as creationism is already, and the only change they need to make is that 'God might not be the creator' rather than saying God is.  Plus you can teach it in the context of explaining how certain fundamentalist groups wish to attack science because they view it as aetheistic rather than secular and neutral, and illustrate why they feel they need to do so, thus helping expose a lot more the manipulations that otherwise go unchallenged.

[karajorma]

Teaching it in that context is one thing but I doubt it would actually be taught in that context. Hell in that context it could be taught in science class as an example of the difference between science and belief.

The thing is it would never be taught like that. Far more sensible to simply drop it completely and let the term fade from public memory completely.

[aldo_14]

Teaching it in that context is one thing but I doubt it would actually be taught in that context. Hell in that context it could be taught in science class as an example of the difference between science and belief.

The thing is it would never be taught like that. Far more sensible to simply drop it completely and let the term fade from public memory completely.

Oh yeah, undoubtedly.  But until that seems more likely, I think we need to make it officially explicit that it's religion and explain the manipulation behind it.  Plus it'd (fingers crossed) shut up all those calling for ID to be taught, and they'd have no comeback.

[ZmaN]

I didnt mean to make such a big frikin deal about this...  I'm just stating that I THINK, that Creationism is true and Evolution is not, just like you guys do vice-versa....

Ok so can you please stop yelling at me....

If you must know, Im 16 years old...

[Ford Prefect]

Well why didn't you tell them that before? You're excused.

[aldo_14]

I didnt mean to make such a big frikin deal about this...  I'm just stating that I THINK, that Creationism is true and Evolution is not, just like you guys do vice-versa....

Ok so can you please stop yelling at me....

If you must know, Im 16 years old...

do you have any basis for that belief?  I mean, we are talking about throwing out over a centuries worth of scientific knowledge here (even the Vatican says evolution is fine, and they're scarcely aethesitic or secular), it'd be nice for you to have some form of logic for it.  Hell, if you're 16 then maybe you're not old enough to be numb to actual learning, so maybe you just have a few honest misconceptions that could be helped with - after all, it's not like the US school system has been verging on the competent on this issue of late.

[Bobboau]

speaking of no comeback, where the **** did ZmaN go?

maybe I should give something a bit easier to atack...

It is a fact that there is no God.

there, he (or someone, hopefuly not just some one on my side trying to be fair) had better damn chalenge that.

[aldo_14]

speaking of no comeback, where the **** did ZmaN go?

maybe I should give something a bit easier to atack...

It is a fact that there is no God.

there, he (or someone, hopefuly not just some one on my side trying to be fair) had better damn chalenge that.

The existence of God is unknowable.  Were it to become knowable, it would cease to be supernatural and thus cease to be God.  Thus, the existence or non-existance of God can never be determined.  A bit like Shroedingers cat in the dual-state of unknowingness, I guess.

Albiet I'd prefer to know why he thinks this, because I'm wondering if it's not too late to correct some of the likely mistakes; he's clearly been shown bad, incorrect and  propagandistic info, going by the chicken thing mentioned earlier.

[Bobboau]

crap! he posted while I was reading the thread!
now I look like such a duche!

yeah, I know that, it had been a day and he hadn't posted so I wanted to give him an easy kill, but then he goes and posts right after I started reading the last page so it looks like that was in responce to him when it was bait to lure him back.

and come on ZmaN don't give up so easily, that isn't any fun! at the very least find a suitable replacement.

[aldo_14]

crap! he posted while I was reading the thread!
now I look like such a duche!

yeah, I know that, it had been a day and he hadn't posted so I wanted to give him an easy kill, but then he goes and posts right after I started reading the last page so it looks like that was in responce to him when it was bait to lure him back.

and come on ZmaN don't give up so easily, that isn't any fun! at the very least find a suitable replacement.

Maybe he just doesn't have the conviction in his views to feel they can withstand questioning?