"God, in whatever form, is nothing more than an imaginary friend for adults."

Not my quote. But a good one. Because when you're a kid, and you have imaginary friends, to you they are as real as anything else around. To people who don't believe in them, they don't exist. So it goes with any form of divine being- and from the sheer multitude of them that are present today and have been present throughout history, it is obvious that no one faith has the 'real' picture. And those who could actually tell us about what happens after we die are in no position to communicate, which is why this argument will never end.

All I know is that people who sit on their high horse and extol the virtue of the Bible, or the Koran, or any religious belief by presenting it as being truth run into a very simple problem-

Why are their beliefs the 'right' beliefs? Because their book says so? Because they believe?

If this is the case, then what about someone from another faith who believes just as fervently? Are there beliefs not just as valid, just as 'right'?

As most religions don't like the idea of coexisting- at least not accepting the validity of other religions- how do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?

Either

1) BOTH beliefs are to be considered 'true', in which case neither is.....

OR

2) One of these sides (or both) decides to denounce the other as being 'false'.

If 1 occurs, then what is the point in arguing about religion? And if 2 occurs, then quite frankly, you're an ignorant Neanderthal if you honestly believe you can discredit someone else's beliefs through the basis of nothing more than your own.

Just a nice little logic progression series to keep all of you entertained whilst more Scripture and dogma are flung around.

So, just why DID the chicken cross the road?
Discuss.
  

I cannot speak for those in the current religious debate, but I'm just trying to show that evolution is a science and should be taught in schools as science. Intelligent Design is not science and should not be taught in schools as science. This is still a major issue here in the US and the states that have brought this up include Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, and Florida. School boards have even go so far as to redefine science. This is a disservice to the children growing up and learning at these schools as it gives them a skewed view of scientific thought. To say it's irreconcilable and move on ignores the point that there are people actively trying to get ID taught in schools as "freedom of speech" or "teach the controversy." Expelled is the latest in their efforts, but it seems to be little more than preaching to the choir.

I dunno why I joined this argument; actually I do, I couldn't stand the ignorant statements regarding scriptures. But regardless, I retreat.

In my wake, I leave the popular and scientifically proven statement: "Arguing on the internet is just like entering the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

You mean the offering of living as slaves and serve them in forced labor? Yep. Great alternative!



How is it not murder? And do you think it is right to exterminate whole cities just because they drink, doesn't practice safe sex, and refuse to become slaves? To me it seems a little excessive.



Yep, i think you're right.
So, is there any ID supporter that have any scientific reason to why it should be taught in science classes?

*Note, the following response is directed at anyone representing the ID camp, not Forgiven personally.



Well, simple: just atoms on the ground + lightning (as one of the theory goes anyways). Sure, no one knows since no one was there to witness the monumental moment...but I'm sure you weren't there when the Bible was written as well.

Was that too difficult to understand? Or you do understand and are going to ask the usual ID dogma of where atoms came from? OK then, where did your beloved God come from then? Oh right, you're going to say that he was always there. Then maybe the multiverse (the universe beyond our universe) was always there too. Lovely. Two can play that game.



Telling others to read up? Maybe you should go read the century and a half worth of research notes and papers related to evolution before you start telling others to "read up". I'm sure it's much thicker than all the books of the bible combined. When you finish reading through them, you're welcome to tell others to read the bible. Or is this where you're going to say that only Darwin's papers were the original ones, like the Bible was the original one? Oh wait, we never claimed that Darwin's papers are the only authority on the subject, did we? But I'm sure you did claim that some book of the Bible IS the scripture.



And...you do? Last I remembered, God was infinite. So for you to have *some* measurable grasp of God means God is finite. So what is it? God is infinite and you have no grasp of Him, or you have a grasp of God and God isn't infinite? If the former case, then you have no reason to say to others that they don't have a grasp of God (since no one will, by definition). If the latter, then God isn't so powerful, is he (I'd certainly like to sue him for false advertisement and crimes against humanity in that case...but if I had to chose, I'd chose that he's infinite)?



Wow, ID dogma at its best. Shows the complete idiocy of the whole theory. You don't even get what evolution is saying. It's saying that we have a COMMON ANCESTOR as monkeys, not that monkeys are our ancestors. Either that, or the ID camp's reading comprehension skill needs improvement.

And even IF we did evolve from monkeys, that logic is still flawed. It's like me saying "you came from your mother, then why is your mother still around?" (Well, I'm making an assumption that your mother IS still around...at least I don't want to ill-wish someone else...)



What does Sins run on? (I hope we at least agree on this one)

You're not asking the origins of life then are you, you are asking the origins of the universe itself. Something which evolutionary theory makes absolutely no statements about because it is beyond the scope of its field.


The only person here claiming to know the origins of the universe is you. Not knowing how the universe came into existence is not proof of any god, it is not proof of anything. What about the universe requires a designer? Its apparent order? As beings existing in this universe we have no choice but to see order, we even see order where there is none. Or do you think "God" put those weird faces in the texturing on your ceiling, and shaped that cloud the other day into a bunny rabbit?


No, it is hyperbole, never a valid argument or explanation, and it isn't how evolutionists think, not respected ones anyway.


Isn't your god the "something from nothing" you hang on to?


Actually, I am pretty sure the days in a week are based of the length between moon phases. Four weeks is damn close to a lunar month.


I'd say its more like an hypothesis founded on an argument from ignorance.

Kiss my ass.

Wind can be seen if it is dusty, and even if it isn't it can be measured objectively. What objective evidence do you have for your god? Thousand year old books are not proof, neither are "good feelings".


Not really, as the amoeba sprouting arms and legs is a straw man argument.


So right and wrong are not absolutes? They're subject to a deity's whims? If he decides rape and murder are glorious, then do they cease to be evil?


You mean god didn't know which were the good and which were the bad? He couldn't limit himself to punishing only the bad? There had to be a few babies in those cities.


I think I found a new sig. :CONGRAT:

Evolution is an hypothesis, Intelligent Design is an hypothesis. Neither one deserves to be taught in a science class. There is no evidence that species change from one to the other over time as evolution tries to explain the diversity of life.

Natural selection should be taught. It is verifiable. Living things change over time in response to environment. It's very well documented.

Intelligent Design and Evolution are not verifiable because we cannot see into the past to see what really happened. The missing link is still missing from every species and God is still invisible (if you choose to believe in God).

And please, if you answer me, provide specific examples of why Evolution or Intelligent Design are proven scientifically so I can be enlightened.

O_o

This is getting retarded. The "Believers" have no proof, will never have any proof, and are losing more and more loopholes to wiggle their way through back into belief. Of course just plain ignoring information that is right in front of their faces... aka being IGNORANT, something they then like to accuse everyone else of, repeatedly. So the argument is pointless... the evolutionists are at least the closest to being right, and the ID idiots simply refuse progress in any form. Its thanks to you religious numbskulls that there was no significant amount of scientific study or progress for THOUSANDS of years, and in fact, many times caused things to be destroyed that could have put the human race MILLENIA ahead technology-wise of where it is today. Please go back into dark ages, and leave us that have used science to create better lives for ourselves alone.


Oh, and there appears to be a jehovahs witness in the crowd. To you sir, I ask that you pray to your ficticious friend in the clouds to give me back the minute and a half of scratching my ass last saturday morning that I missed out on when one of you assholes rang my doorbell.

I am finished reading this thread. There were some good points being made by both sides in fact. Unfortuantely now that all the points have been made, the religion side has once again devolved into a collection of either A)well... its all metaphorical, but its still all 100% true, meaning that by definition it can't be 100% true as a metaphor will mean different things to different people, and nothing at all to some. or LALALALALALALALALALA I'm not listening!!!!

hey guys, I didn't see ancient Egypt ergo it didn't exist

YEAH! We agree on something!

examples have been provided for evolution multiple times throughout the thread.

RTFP.

ABSOLUTLEY! I have never denied that.

lawl

You can at least attempt to observe Evolution. It takes millions of years for this to see it happen. This is puny compared to the last 100 we have been studying it.

How can we observe a greater being? We can't really.

For myself, how can I define god? A superior being? Not in my mind. The word god to me represents creation. What created all of this matter? We can at least attempt to observe this.

Or maybe all the matter in the universe was always here... It never was created. How can this be so?
So far we cannot figure out how to create something from absolutely nothing. But what if there was ALWAYS something?

Or maybe there is NOTHING... People are currently researching anti-matter.

Guess we will find out in the end... whatever that might be.

The problem is that people will always want that stage in between. When a missing link is found, people want the ones between the new link and those it joins to each other. The fossil record clearly shows a progression, it just isn't smooth enough for some people...and never could be.


But we can to some degree by observing its effects on the present and the artifacts it leaves behind. Layers of sediment and rock, radiological dating methods, fossils, imprints and more all paint a picture of the past.


Very little can actually be proven scientifically. As has been pointed out numerous times, even gravity is still a theory. The problem with intelligent design is that it is not disprovable and is an argument from ignorance. Disproving intelligent design is like disproving god or unicorns, it cannot be done. Even in this thread we see the goal posts being subtly moved for ID from speciation to abiogenesis to the origin of the universe itself.

But evolution isn't hung on something from nothing. It doesn't concern itself with the origins of the universe. If anything, evolution is about something from something else.

WRONG! You are seeing the EFFECTS of the wind. You are seeing the DIRT being blown by the wind, not the wind (air) itself.



Says who? So you are saying since it is so old, then it can't be true? Man... that is a powerful argument. (/sarcasm off)

I guess all history I have been taught in school is wrong, because they are also based on old, historical records. You just can't trust them old people.

As a side note, I don't understand peoples need for a first cause. It seems to me just a "turtles all the way down" argument in a different direction. If you saw an ice cream cone sitting upright in space (if anything can be said to be "upright" in space), you wouldn't ask what was supporting the cone. If physical objects don't need to have foundations going on forever to keep from falling, why should temporal ones? Or, a box has certain dimensions in space that we do not expect it to extend beyond, why should it not have boundaries in time as well?

Quiet man who thinks water could evolve.

If you want to get technical, you are not seeing the keyboard you typed on, just the difference in photons bouncing off of it compared to the environment around it. Heck, you are not even feeling the keys, merely signals about pressure on your finger tips.


I am in no way saying such things, stop arguing against points I have not made. I am saying age does not indicate truth, and often (not always) depicts flawed understandings of the world around us. Of course, since your schools were teaching you Columbus thought the world was flat, they probably used physics and biology books that were a century old as well...which would explain a lot.

I never said it could evolve.

there you go.