It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Teaching Creationism Is Unfair And Here's Why

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Hate to tell you, but evolution is fact. The controversy in the scientific community is its SCALE





Hilarious.

Show me one inkling of proof that Evolution is real.
Do you have a missing link?

Any fossil records?

or just THEORIES?

See. Scientific facts cannot be theoretical, because a theory has to go through the scientific method in order to become fact.

As evolution is not a fact, and only a theory - your argument is moot.

Evolution is no different than creationism as it pertains to public school curriculum.
They are both theories. One is of faith, the other is of "educated guess", neither of which are provable.


Andrew,, that was the most elegant explanation of the paradox between the two I have ever heard and Ill be quoting from you Often. Don't worry Ill have your name next to it you deserve the respect

O here you might find this one very funny

www.belowtopsecret.com...

Enjoy

- Con




posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Gotta do it....WRONG! Hinduism has a head god. Its Brahmin which is a deification of Brahma. Hehehehe.

As far as the OP goes....people will argue this forever until something is irrefutably proved. Basically it boils down to a bunch of ancient books and reasonable (in some ways) scientific speculation. The way some people defend evolution is enough to make it a religion in my eyes. It might not matter to me. I am comfortable in my Taoism and have no "stake" in this argument. Either way, I believe in the Tao. Whether or not my ancestors were churned out of the loom of Nature as men or primates makes little difference to me other than as a passing interest. You guys...seem to have a lot at stake. One side has scientific credibility and seemingly shirked spiritual responsibility up in the air and the other has an entire belief system waiting to be "debunked". You guys have fun arguing about your monkeys and invisible men...I'll be over in the corner...doing kung fu...and yoga...and gaining siddhis...and eating some cookies. Delicious cookies I might add.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Torsten
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Gotta do it....WRONG! Hinduism has a head god. Its Brahmin which is a deification of Brahma. Hehehehe.


That wasn't the question, the question was any religion that has multiple gods and not just one head god. Whist you do have a leading god in hinduism yu also have other gods, someone was comparing it to christianity. In christianity there is only one god, in hinduism there are multiple gods at different tiers and so within that context i was quite correct



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984If you want to learn creationism, if you want to believe in ID, then please teach your children yourself. Oh and don't say we should teach both because anyone teaching both will favour one or the other, they will not be presented equally. That's a way of sneaking in religious teachers in schools, Keep ID and creationism in church, do not bring it into the school unless it's a privately funded school.


and this part gets to the crux of the matter for most of us in the USA. I taught my kids at home school. But yet, I still have to pay 'school taxes' for something like evolution - and other things - that I am adversely opposed to being taught. I would be MUCH more inclined to allow evolutionism be taught without a fight if I didn't have to fund it. The National Brainwashing Authority - otherwise known as the NEA (National Education Ass.) - will not do that though because they know how much revenue they would lose when parents can "truly be free to teach our children ourselves" as you suggested. So they lie, cheat, do whatever to teach this "fact" of evolution and anyone opposed is just supposed to go along with it?



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TrailGator
 


Go along with it? No if you're against it then please provide evidence as to why it's wrong, sadly that evidence doesn't exist, only speculation and wishful thinking. If you start saing you shoudln't pay rax for education becuase you taught your children at home, then it's a slippery slope. Next it will be healthcare, then the police, afterall you protect your own kids who needs to pay taxes for the cops huh.

Sorry i'm not a socialist but some tax is a good thing, i don't agree with how a lot of my tax is spent but i still pay it, or at least i used ot until i got to ill to work. My point being is that i simply did what democracy was based on, i wrote to my local authorities with my concerns. You should do the same, not simply talk of how you shouldn't have to pay tax for education.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by TrailGator
 


Go along with it? No if you're against it then please provide evidence as to why it's wrong, sadly that evidence doesn't exist, only speculation and wishful thinking. If you start saing you shoudln't pay rax for education becuase you taught your children at home, then it's a slippery slope. Next it will be healthcare, then the police, afterall you protect your own kids who needs to pay taxes for the cops huh.

Sorry i'm not a socialist but some tax is a good thing, i don't agree with how a lot of my tax is spent but i still pay it, or at least i used ot until i got to ill to work. My point being is that i simply did what democracy was based on, i wrote to my local authorities with my concerns. You should do the same, not simply talk of how you shouldn't have to pay tax for education.


you said above that it should only be taught at home or in a privately funded school....so, my point is, why? Why should school be privately funded and I still must pay public school taxes if my children do not go there? And DO NOT equate the public school fiasco with healthcare, police and fire protection! Those are essential public safety concerns, and school does not fall into that category. The public schools - and unfortunately, too many of our colleges and universities - no longer have as their primary goal the teaching of reading and writing and mathematics, but in fact, their primary goal is to introduce our children to socialism ideas. And the teaching of evolutionary dogma plays along with that. This is the teaching that inspired Hitler and the Nazi Party. It is part and parcel with the teachings of Linen and Marx. This is fact, and Hitler said as much in his writings and speeches. Evolutionism teaches essentially that man is nothing, that man is only a lump of flesh no different from a chimpanzee except for speech or something like that, and that there is no consequences for mistreating one another. Thus the slaughter of probably 20 million people between Hitler and Stalin alone.

Biblical creation teaches that God had a purpose in all they He created, and foremost of all was man. Man has a preminent role in creation, and though he rejected God, He still loves man that He created. Enough to send His Son to die the sin debt that man should pay, but cannot. If we all just evolved from some primordial swamp ameoba, there would be no civilized societies, just primal urges and anarchy. Even the rules of your precious 'science' knows this. Nothing moves from chaos or disorder...to order. A basic rule of science.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrailGator

you said above that it should only be taught at home or in a privately funded school....so, my point is, why? Why should school be privately funded and I still must pay public school taxes if my children do not go there? And DO NOT equate the public school fiasco with healthcare, police and fire protection! Those are essential public safety concerns, and school does not fall into that category. The public schools - and unfortunately, too many of our colleges and universities - no longer have as their primary goal the teaching of reading and writing and mathematics, but in fact, their primary goal is to introduce our children to socialism ideas. And the teaching of evolutionary dogma plays along with that. This is the teaching that inspired Hitler and the Nazi Party. It is part and parcel with the teachings of Linen and Marx. This is fact, and Hitler said as much in his writings and speeches. Evolutionism teaches essentially that man is nothing, that man is only a lump of flesh no different from a chimpanzee except for speech or something like that, and that there is no consequences for mistreating one another. Thus the slaughter of probably 20 million people between Hitler and Stalin alone.

Biblical creation teaches that God had a purpose in all they He created, and foremost of all was man. Man has a preminent role in creation, and though he rejected God, He still loves man that He created. Enough to send His Son to die the sin debt that man should pay, but cannot. If we all just evolved from some primordial swamp ameoba, there would be no civilized societies, just primal urges and anarchy. Even the rules of your precious 'science' knows this. Nothing moves from chaos or disorder...to order. A basic rule of science.


I totally agree with you and this is why lots of people are begining to homeschool but more than that if evolution offends your religious belief you can sue the same way Atheist's have done and that is something more and more people are starting to do. I am sick and tired of Atheist's running our public schools, what wit the shootings and violence and test scores especially in Science they are pathetic. More than that is the fact that evolution is no more or less having any religiousness to it than a Science that suggests a Master creator.

It is the religious implications NOT God they are scared of and why I have no idea God has no religion that I know of and endorses none that I know of. This tells me that even IF God DID in fact create all we see in nature and it were a bonafide fact, they would STILL turn to that silly idea that we evolved from goop in spite of the truth. Not in the name of Science but in the interest of their own fleshly deeds and desires fearing the same Biblical Judgement of sin whether that God would be about that or not.

The odds are, they think it would be the God they fear, the one they hate. This isn't about Science in classrooms, it's about not owning up to the truth and the advancement of secular humanism the religion of Atheism.

It is prejudice it is discrimination and the idea that ID is a religion the way Atheists worship Darwin and that flunky evolution bunk like arrogant religious science zealots, I can't see the difference. It isn't Science they are trying to protect it is Atheism. Frankly, I don't think they really give a rats ass about anything but themselves and it isn't just a coincedence Atheists have such a strange fascination with this particular area of Science, it's part of their Doctrine their creed their bible and Dawkins is there Pope.

The similiarities to religion are undeniably obvious and when people finally realize that is what this bullcrap science is,,

They should quit teaching it or add an alternative regardless of what Atheists want. If were an elective course, can you imagine the arguments during lunch hour. Just think of the competitive drive to new discoveries to prove one or the other. Oh that's right,, evolution can't handle competition and want to enjoy their monopoly in addition to making any challenge to their flunky science unconstitutional.

Such academic cowardice

should be illegal

- Con



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
A few good arguments on both sides, but while evolution still has many holes (and, as I see it, will have them for a long time), creationism does not stand up to it. Evolution is taught because there is still no other competing theory to it, and is currently the most logical explanation of species with strong evidence backing it up, even though it has some holes, but not inconsistencies. In any case, when evolution is finally proven false, another logical, more solid theory will replace it and that will not be creationism.

Teching evolution as a fact is wrong though. I think schools should teach in depth the bases of the theory that have been proven true, such as genetics, crossbreeding, mutations, and adaptation. The larger theory of evolution might as well not be taught, until it becomes irrefutable.

And creationism should be left for philosophy, as it deals with the origins of life, not species. That, or an elective as other have proposed. I would prefer it was left out, just as the very theorethical parts of evolution, because seriously, there are much more important things to learn at school that are proven facts.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrailGator
you said above that it should only be taught at home or in a privately funded school....so, my point is, why? Why should school be privately funded and I still must pay public school taxes if my children do not go there? And DO NOT equate the public school fiasco with healthcare, police and fire protection! Those are essential public safety concerns, and school does not fall into that category.


Well we disagree i think schools do fall into that category because education is what brings a society out of chaos. It's what makes us able to understand the world and fear less.

"A population who are educated, healthy and informed are harder to control" - Tony Benn


Originally posted by TrailGator
The public schools - and unfortunately, too many of our colleges and universities - no longer have as their primary goal the teaching of reading and writing and mathematics, but in fact, their primary goal is to introduce our children to socialism ideas.


It seems your american schools are vastly different to our UK schools. Ours have dropped standards a hell of a lot but they havn't promoted socialst ideas.


Originally posted by TrailGator
And the teaching of evolutionary dogma plays along with that. This is the teaching that inspired Hitler and the Nazi Party.


No hang ona second, hitler misinterpreted it and went with eugenics. Eugenics is not the natural progression of evolution and this is the same tired and flawed old arguement you creationists bring out time and again. It's wrong on every level, i believe in evolution but i would never advocate killing anyone because their genes were bad.


Originally posted by TrailGator
It is part and parcel with the teachings of Linen and Marx. This is fact, and Hitler said as much in his writings and speeches. Evolutionism teaches essentially that man is nothing, that man is only a lump of flesh no different from a chimpanzee except for speech or something like that, and that there is no consequences for mistreating one another. Thus the slaughter of probably 20 million people between Hitler and Stalin alone.


Yet again more rubbish, sorry but you are just lying here. Hitler misinterpreted evolution and went with eugenics, as did lenin and marx. How about all those lovely christians who fire bomb abortion clinics, they are also twisting the words of the bible to commit horrible acts. It says in there somewhere to not hurt people now doesn't it. Turn the other cheek etc.

Man is not merely a lump of flesh made special by speech. We are made special by intelligence, the ability to manipulate our enviroments to a massive degree and the fact we are self aware. As for there being no right or wrong if you believe in evolution, well again that's a blatant lie and utterly false. I believe in evolution, i have never killed anyone, maimed anyone, raped anyone, assaulted anyone (other than self defense). That alone should blow apart that little fantasy you have about evolution, social interaction and goodness does not require god. We also have man made laws which are a guide to follow.


Originally posted by TrailGator
Biblical creation teaches that God had a purpose in all they He created, and foremost of all was man. Man has a preminent role in creation, and though he rejected God, He still loves man that He created. Enough to send His Son to die the sin debt that man should pay, but cannot.


I will again state i am absolutely on your side to believe whatever you wish, i truly support that idea, freedom of thought. However you have no proof for your above statement and so it cannot be taught as fact ina school. The bible is a very old book, with nothing to back it up, it is therefore not proof. Science textbooks have proof behind them.


Originally posted by TrailGator
If we all just evolved from some primordial swamp ameoba, there would be no civilized societies, just primal urges and anarchy. Even the rules of your precious 'science' knows this. Nothing moves from chaos or disorder...to order. A basic rule of science.


Entropy, thats the word you're searching for and probably trying to throw in thermodynamics. This law has been horribly abused by creationists, maybe you should actually read the science about it because they often misquote the law only giving the second part.

You are very wrong, whilst animals may tend towards their animal urges we have evolved to develop higher functions. If you look back in history you will find man was horribly brutal, murder, torture, genecide were even more commonplace than they are now. However man had a brain and realised we couldn't keep doing this, slowly over time we laid down laws, they were enforced and people started to realise the world was better with relative peace.

Hopefully more of the world will follow.


Originally posted by conspiriology
It is the religious implications NOT God they are scared of and why I have no idea God has no religion that I know of and endorses none that I know of. This tells me that even IF God DID in fact create all we see in nature and it were a bonafide fact, they would STILL turn to that silly idea that we evolved from goop in spite of the truth. Not in the name of Science but in the interest of their own fleshly deeds and desires fearing the same Biblical Judgement of sin whether that God would be about that or not.


Typical ignorance, and yes you are ignorant if you believe this. I happen to have fleshly lusts yep but i know people who don't. I have a friend who stayed abstinant until he married, doesn't drink at all and will often berate me for the occasional swear word i use. He's also a biochemist and an evolution believer and an atheist!

So you are basically espousing a bigoted and clearly wrong view. Also i should maybe mention that if jesus died for our sins then i'm well within my rights to indulge those fleshly lusts as long as i pray to god, accpet him/her/it into my heart and ask for forgivness.

Gotta love that religion.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Typical ignorance, and yes you are ignorant if you believe this. I happen to have fleshly lusts yep but i know people who don't. I have a friend who stayed abstinant until he married, doesn't drink at all and will often berate me for the occasional swear word i use. He's also a biochemist and an evolution believer and an atheist!


Ya know why you put the exclamation after that to tell me he is an atheist?

Because even to you,, THAT IS SURPRISING!

Most Atheists don't give a rats ass about not satisfying their every indulgence so he is unique.



So you are basically espousing a bigoted and clearly wrong view.


Like I said pal,, your putting that exclamation point after that story about your friend telling me what a Goody goody guy he is then saying and HE IS AN ATHEIST! That is the exception to the rule and shows ONLY that their are such exceptions to the rule but stereotypes often fit because they ARE TRUE not necessarily having anything to do with bigotry. I am so disaffected by that word anymore around here I couldn't care less if you thought i was. So what.

Now



Also i should maybe mention that if jesus died for our sins then i'm well within my rights to indulge those fleshly lusts as long as i pray to god, accpet him/her/it into my heart and ask for forgivness.

Gotta love that religion.


So another words, it is a get out of jail free card and you think you can pull a fast one on God that way without repentance and the heart of a child. Just sort of cheat. The thing is,, invariably when their is a genuine conversion taken place (and you would definatley know it) you wouldn't want to do those things anymore anyway. To think you can fool God is pretty ignorant of any believer or fake.

Obviously,, You don't know that religion to be able to say "gotta love that religion"

I'd have to ask,, what religion

are YOU talkin about?


ID, Creationism, should be taught in Science or they should get rid of the phony one they got in there now that from the day Chuck Darwin invented it to piss off religious people to this day, it has been nothing but the biggest most expensive hoax ever perpetrated.

The ever lying illusion of,

evolution

- Con



[edit on 23-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Bit of a double post my apologies.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Ya know why you put the exclamation after that to tell me he is an atheist?

Because even to you,, THAT IS SURPRISING!

Most Atheists don't give a rats ass about not satisfying their every indulgence so he is unique.


Really, you've surveyed every man and woman on earth? I know a few other people like that albeit agnostic not atheist. I doubt he's unique, and even if he was then it shows god isn't needed to create these things so many christians hold dear.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Like I said pal,, your putting that exclamation point after that story about your friend telling me what a Goody goody guy he is then saying and HE IS AN ATHEIST!


Wrong, in every sense you are completely not getting the point, that is not why i put the exclamation mark. I put it there to emphasis that you're talking nonsense.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
That is the exception to the rule and shows ONLY that their are such exceptions to the rule but stereotypes often fit because they ARE TRUE not necessarily having anything to do with bigotry. I am so disaffected by that word anymore around here I couldn't care less if you thought i was. So what.


Well every bigot doesn't care what someone thinks of them now do they.




Originally posted by Conspiriology
So another words, it is a get out of jail free card and you think you can pull a fast one on God that way without repentance and the heart of a child. Just sort of cheat. The thing is,, invariably when their is a genuine conversion taken place (and you would definatley know it) you wouldn't want to do those things anymore anyway. To think you can fool God is pretty ignorant of any believer or fake.


I never said fool, maybe you should read it again, i was saying if i genuinely repent at the end i can do whatever i wish at the start and mer importantly, i have known christians, who believe in god as strongly as anyone, who have gone about shagging all that moves. I severly doubt god gives a rats arse about a bit of sex.

A very old book tells you it's correct, but remember the time it's coming from. A time when women really were nothing more than objects of lust and birth control wasn't known. The book was written so that fathers could trade their daughters, as is still done in some countries and cultures.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Obviously,, You don't know that religion to be able to say "gotta love that religion"

I'd have to ask,, what religion

are YOU talkin about?


I'm talking of christianity of course and you are misquting me, iw asn't on abotu tricking god.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
ID, Creationism, should be taught in Science or they should get rid of the phony one they got in there now that from the day Chuck Darwin invented it to piss off religious people to this day, it has been nothing but the biggest most expensive hoax ever perpetrated.

The ever lying illusion of,

evolution


Firstly prove it, secondly if you teach creationism you favour christianity and so must also teach all other creation myths. Are you against teaching all of the creation myths? Becuase to be fair you must do that you know, otherwise you are pushing a belief based on a single religious text. Without factual evidence.

[edit on 23-7-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I'd received a U2U asking to respond to the thread as one who has a degree in Biology, is a scientist, and ia unconvinced in regards to trans-speciation. Thanks for the U2U, the one who sent it. I had steered clear of the Evolution vs. Creationism forums because a general lack of progress in discussing the topic. Despite what is considered my qualifications on the topic, I can say that the seekers of information who verify the validity of what they are reading are probably as well versed about it as I am. A hundred years ago, I would have expected a Biologist to know a great deal more than those not in the field, but there's no longer a wide chasm between those who work in Biology for a living versus those who have a persistently vested interest in the topic. Thank the Information Age for that. The bottom line for me is there isn't a great deal of difference between 'expert' and 'hobbyist' on the topic these days. An expert, to me, is one who can explain the mechanism of evolution in an clear and accurate manner while maintaining the oft overlooked Scientific Method.




1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.


phyun5.ucr.edu...

For evolution, we need a model, a mechanism, data, testable experiments and verified results.



A hypothesis is a working assumption.

But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.


phyun5.ucr.edu...

Everyone else who is a proponent of evolution would merely say "look at these bone!"

There are issues with taxonomy, it changes almost daily. That was one surprise I'd gotten out of my Verbate Natural History class. There are problems is mere natural selection, as discussed in my Ecology class (also in that class was discussed the problems with Global Warming). I went to a state University, not a religiously aligned one.

My conclusion throughout all of this is, do not teach a mechanism unless you can fully explain it or consider all hypotheses and allow the students to decide. I prefer the latter, it is the more scientific way to approach things.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by saint4God]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


I stated earlier in the thread that if all of the creation myths were taught then i'd allow it. I don't just want creationism taught as that favours one religion, if you teach christian based creation then you must teach the legens of egypt and babylon, if we accept the idea that all views should be accepted until we can prove one correct as you say.

I would also agrue that evolution has predicted some thins. Like we predicted what sort of fossils we should find, and we then found those fossils. Is that not a theory put fully into practice and fufilling the requirment of prediction? We can also view an enviroment and predict which sort of organisms will live their base on the evolutionary needs of the organism for the enviroment.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
My conclusion throughout all of this is, do not teach a mechanism unless you can fully explain it or consider all hypotheses and allow the students to decide. I prefer the latter, it is the more scientific way to approach things.


I am curious as to what other hypotheses you are referring to that could be considered scientific. The closest argument that Creationism has to offer seems to be intelligent design.

But upon closer inspection, ID can not be applied to the scientific method. Hence, it lacks scientific scrutiny and should not be considered as an alternative to evolutionary theory in the public school system.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984


I don't just want creationism taught as that favours one religion, if you teach christian based creation then you must teach the legens of egypt and babylon, if we accept the idea that all views should be accepted until we can prove one correct as you say.

I would also agrue that evolution has predicted some thins. Like we predicted what sort of fossils we should find, and we then found those fossils. Is that not a theory put fully into practice and fufilling the requirment of prediction? We can also view an enviroment and predict which sort of organisms will live their base on the evolutionary needs of the organism for the enviroment.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



I stated earlier in the thread that if all of the creation myths were taught then i'd allow it.


You just stated it is a myth so that pretty much takes any impartiality out of the equation. You can not be trusted with a bias like that and just what religion is creationism exactly? If you say Christianity what the hell does that have to do with God if God doesn't have a religion?

I personally don't know what God's religion is, do you?

What other religions have an explanation like origins ?


I would also agrue that evolution has predicted some thins. Like we predicted what sort of fossils we should find, and we then found those fossils. Is that not a theory put fully into practice and fufilling the requirment of prediction?


Yeah it is easy to predict environments where the sunshine is like arizona and predict an increase in skin cancer or for that matter someone evolving a tan on their skin as we all pretty much accept micro evolution that way just as it was easy to predict the micro evolution of those fossils you mention. When they can prove transmutation macro species to new and different species evolution is what we have never seen substantiated. The rest of it was alll typical Biology that Darwinists have attached themselves to as if Darwin created the science of Biology.

Darwin was a dimwit and creationism of the Bible kind has been observed and tested just as you read this carrying the seed of your kind and no other kind.

I think the sooner Science quits trying to prove otherwise the sooner Science will get to doing what it should be doing rather than trying to prove something that has never happened and won't without man tampering with DNA

- Con




[edit on 25-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
"God might have created the universe and setup the rules, but i don't think god can break the rules.

Evolution is the way i think god would do it, god would set up a system that takes care of itself rather than designing everything.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]


That's the beauty of the debate. Can God keep a consistent universe yet break the rules? Here's another.

If you believe in AD, you cannot predict future genetic mutations, because God will not let you know his will. (Pure creationist stuff), so you have to model future mutations as random which all sides could agree to. This is a debate about the past and not the future and is an article of faith and not science. God has little to do with it, rather strict ideological interpretation.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by redled

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
"God might have created the universe and setup the rules, but i don't think god can break the rules.

Evolution is the way i think god would do it, god would set up a system that takes care of itself rather than designing everything.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]


That's the beauty of the debate. Can God keep a consistent universe yet break the rules? Here's another.

If you believe in AD, you cannot predict future genetic mutations, because God will not let you know his will. (Pure creationist stuff), so you have to model future mutations as random which all sides could agree to. This is a debate about the past and not the future and is an article of faith and not science. God has little to do with it, rather strict ideological interpretation.


The thing is he hasn't really thought this through that is obvious for example he says:


"God might have created the universe and setup the rules, but i don't think god can break the rules.


Does a parent make rules for his offspring that the parent doesn't follow?

Of course and we see it all the time from curfew to what movies they can watch. Why can't God have the same right



Evolution is the way i think god would do it, god would set up a system that takes care of itself rather than designing everything.


This is saying how he thinks God would do it if HE were God.
It also assumes their is some kind of efficiency to his way vs designing everything even tough his way would still be designing it that way regardless.

This is sort of like firing an arrow at the side of a barn and walking up to the arrow sticking out of the side of the barn

and painting a target

around it.


- Con

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
The thing is he hasn't really thought this through that is obvious for example he says:


You think so? I have gone through such arguements for many years, gotta love how you generalise.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Does a parent make rules for his offspring that the parent doesn't follow?


So lets be clear, you have a go at me for comparing god to humans and then you compare a human parent to god, wow that is some serious hypocrisy. You don't seem to have thought it through as much as i have do you



Originally posted by Conspiriology
This is saying how he thinks God would do it if HE were God.
It also assumes their is some kind of efficiency to his way vs designing everything even tough his way would still be designing it that way regardless.


No i am saying how god would be efficient, god seems to have enveloped the universe in efficiency (if god exists) and so i go by gods rules.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

You think so? I have gone through such arguements for many years, gotta love how you generalise.


I don't care if you have 20 years experience at this guy, I am not impressed, your "stuff " is garbage as if you took your first years experience and repeated it for the next 19 years.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Does a parent make rules for his offspring that the parent doesn't follow?



So lets be clear, you have a go at me for comparing god to humans and then you compare a human parent to god, wow that is some serious hypocrisy. You don't seem to have thought it through as much as i have do you



No I am showing YOU why there IS no hipocrisy we were made in Gods image and have many of his traits and no I didn't come down on you for the comparison but the logical fallacy for assuming the consequent where I merely offered a similar analogy which by the way you have failed to refute having avoided it all together inlieu of an ad-hom which still doesn't refute the analogy I gave.

Does God Not have the right to make rules God himself doesn't have to comply with. Yes obviously the same way we do, they wouold simply be OUR rules to follow, NOT Gods



No i am saying how god would be efficient, god seems to have enveloped the universe in efficiency (if god exists) and so i go by gods rules.


Guy aren't YOU the same guy I just explained why God doesn't have rules to comply with the same as we,,

So don't tell me you go by Gods rules when you have already demonstrated a mediocre understanding of the subject, frankly,, you don't know what you're talking about


- Con



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join