Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
Does being wrong about that thing give me less credibility, probably, but the message is still there.
I`m not getting into this, I just had to say that. I may get angry for some reason and come back to fight, but right now I`m having my coffee. :P
*Buzz*!!!!But thanks for playing.
Have you ever been to the Field Museum in Chicago?
I highly recommended you go, and take a look at Sue the T-Rex. What do you think she is made out of? Paper mache?
Your christian friend is lying. Dinosaurs definitely did exist. I have proof:
A scientific law is a simple statement concerning what will happen under specific circumstances. It offers no explanation and is very narrowly defined (usually as a single equation, which might be expressed in language).
For example: Newton`s second law of motion is F=ma or "when a force acts upon a body, it imparts an acceleration proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass of the body and in the direction of the force."
It offers no explanation regarding why this is so, just a description of it.
A theory is far wider in scope and explains things. Laws and theories are different things. A theory may contain a number of laws.
Also: scientific laws can be broken, which is why I chose that example. It`s not wrong, but it doesn`t apply in all circumstances.
What if it really is???
That`s quite a few centuries behind current understanding. It`s now generally considered proven that we develop from a combination of an egg and a sperm.
Genetics is awesome. A fantastically complex system using only 2 pairs of bases. A system which is species-transparent across all life on Earth. A cell from any Terran life form can process any DNA from any Terran life form. Right now, there are monkeys walking around with jellyfish DNA *that their bodies use*.
I think it`s worth pointing out that the relevant word is not `day`. It`s `yom` (transliterated Hebrew). If the precise meaning of a word is important, it`s necessary to look at the original and not a translation, and also to look at the original cultural context.
I agree with your point, though. As far as I can tell from reading and discussing it with people who understand Hebrew, `yom` doesn`t have a single fixed meaning as a specific length of time and, as far as we can tell, didn`t have ~2500 years ago when the story was written. Which makes `day` and excellent translation in this case.
Even if a Christian ignores thought and just parrots their book, it`s still the same. There are several places in which a word translated (from Hebrew or Greek) as `day` is explicitly *not* 12 or 24 hours.
Science is a method, a way of doing things. It is not a person. Two fundamentally different things can`t be each other. You may as well ask "What if democracy is a fish?"
Why? Children are too young to know why they choose to believe in anything.
"Why can`t both be incorporated into each other?"
I think they can. But people are just too intolerant, and major religions are flawed.
"here`s an idea, why don`t we let everyone believe what they want and if someone doesn`t agree with you, get over it and go on with your life"
Mmm, after some thought, I say the future of humankind depends on everyone`s beliefs. So, it`s not that trivial.
The Catholic Church FIRMLY believes in this that science and faith MUST co-exist as both are a product of God`s will. Faith cannot conflict with reason and vice versa. Granted one does have to make a leap of faith with certain dogma`s of the Catholic Faith, in the end, Faith and Reason still must co-exist.
I`m down with that. However, when it encroaches on the school science class, that`s when I`m going to have some serious beef.
Some are only offensive if you object to the theistic viewpoint from the get go and/or do not understand the wording.
(Lets take #7, Faith != Blind faith for example, theists usually talk about Faith in a sense that is comparable with an inductive leap between evidence and conclusion. This usually causes much anger amongst their opponents who will start screaming about how they don`t have FAITH, they have FACTS, ignoring the inductive nature of science in general. One of the best demonstrations of which is evolution.)
18 is not an argument I`ve ever heard, though I have heard "DNA is a code", which it is, so what`s the problem? The problem is you don`t like the follow up that "this suggests a creator", but you`re bashing the wrong argument here.
We take some pride in being a fair and representative cross-section of the I-A-B community, which is why we`ve been individually selected as mods/admins. I for one think it`s very fair.
To be fair, the 12 or so people who run I-A-B day to day (fancylad and us mods) are a pretty balanced bunch when it comes to these things.
@ElSombreroYea, these things are ridiculous, and people walk the brink of retarded. But damn, is it fun to fuel people and their righteous indignation to protect an opinion which will fizzle in a day or two.
Not necessariy dumb. Maybe ignorant. Maybe a person who realises that they have no argument and therefore must resort to lying about the opposing argument.
Whatever the reason, anyone who uses any form of "only a theory" argument proves that they have no credibility. Unfortunately, many people are ignorant enough to fall for it.
So why should they be taught the creation stories of the religion those churches are part of?
Schools are for education, not religion. Religious creation stories might fit in a course *about* religion, but that shouldn`t ignore all the other religious creation stories (and there are hundreds).
Because they`re completely different things.
I`s like combining an apple and an aeroplane - sure, you can place the apple on the plane or crush it and smear it over the plane, but that isn`t incorporating them into each other.
They`re only driving the freaking annoying argument further then it needs to.
Half the commenters on this are proof.
God is a faith, not a religion. Just you, Jesus as the median, and God.Not you, the pedo priest, Mr. T, the TV, the pronz last night, white Jesus, and then God.
of course then there are the people who accept global warming as 100 percent truth... who also accepted global cooling as a problem in the 1970s...
so your logic is kind of flawed here "they are wrong because global warming is right, and they don`t beleive in global warming" because your basis of the truth isnt exactly, well truthful.
Nope. The leaked emails (or rather, 15 selected sentences from 5 emails between 3 climatologists over a period of 10 years) are innocuous at best if you read them, and best I can tell taken completely out of context to stir up a sh*t-storm. Hardly an overturn of our entire understanding of decades of climate science among the global scientific community. Wikipedia has a decent, impartial article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate#E-mails
They`re also usually the same people who oppose gay marriage, think Obama is the antichrist, and oppose socialised heath care. But that`s another story.
Such as which ones? "The sky is blue?" Jeez.
`It is not the the strongest of the species that survives, but the one most adaptive to change.`Charles Darwin"
I`m sorry but you are misquoting and misinterpreting what the word fit means. Fitness is not a measuremnt of strength, speed or any atheletic ability. Fitness in evolutionary sense is the ability to produce viable offspring. So the phrase "survival of the fittest" means the organism that is well adapted to produce more viable offspring will continue longer than less fit organisms. You were close, but your definition of fitness is wrong.
Er, no, they are considered theories because science never claims to have all the answers. The only facts that exist in science are direct observations- an explanation of observations, such as gravity or evolution, can never progress beyond a theory.
It`s a definitions thing and a wonderful acid test to see how dumb a debate opponent is.
`It is not the the strongest of the species that survives, but the one most adaptive to change.` Charles Darwin
Just a theory? Really? NO poo!! They say that as if there is something higher than theory in science, lol.
The big bang theory has NOTHING TO DO with the creation of the universe. The big bang theory is about what happened AFTER the universe started.
These are, of course, things uneducated children would use in the instance of coming up against an educated atheist.
I am an ID guy, and I apologize for all the idiots out there with my viewpoint. I see them as just as ignorant as all of you do. :-)
Social Darwinism, some will argue, is what Hitler used as reason for developing his "supreme Aryan race". However, Darwinism is more about a social version of "survival of the fittest". While Hitler may have believed his race was the "fittest" for domination, many of his views stemmed from a distorted religious view. This also led to things like the Holocaust which was definitely not the result of Social Darwinism.
Also, many scientists have proven evolution on microbial levels. With small organisms, it is not difficult to show evolution in action. Thus I wouldn`t qualify the argument that there is no evidence for evolution.