Double Exposure, Inc.
  • December 01, 2020, 07:25:05 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science  (Read 8651 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2008, 12:15:52 PM »

you really just dont get it.  And I'm sorry to say its likely you won't.  Evolution is science.  Its testable, falsifiable, and has evidence behind it.  Is the evidence perfect?  No absolutes are solely the province of religion and philosophy.   Every scientific theory from Relativiy to Gravity to Evolution is only good until some one some where finds a better one.  Physics was dramaticly changed by Einstein and biology by Darwin and Mendell.  Saying Evoution is flawed means very little. Much of science has flaws.

Saying  alternatives exist is on the other hand only vaguely true.  Sure their are people who call themselves scienitists who put religion over fact. Their ideas are entirely based on religious faith (or for that matter to acknowledg the other side of ID the belief aliens did it sntead of God, based on conspiracy theories) an have nothng in common with scientific theory or principle.  If we are to hold your desire to see them treated as more then dogmatic religion where do we draw the line?  Should geography classes gie equal time to the flat earth theory? Thousands of people believe the Earth is flat including christians, scientists and philosophers.  How about the moon landing?  Should we teach the alternate theory that its all a hoax?  Or that the Holocaust might not have happened? 

Which unscientific ideas should be taught as "alternatives" and which should be discarded because they're so much hot air?  What should be our guide?  Extreme minorities in the respective field who aren't taken seriously by their compatriots?  A religious text?  What ever is the most popular idea at the time?  Ifyou want your religous beief in creationism or inteligent design to be taken seriously a a theory give evidence.  Stop beating the dead horse that is problems in evolution.  tell us why scientists think ID is not another fringe idea like holocaust denial or flat earth.  If you can't then its very safe to say most people here aren't going to agree with you.  I also pray to God school districts don't.  A child who knows evolution will have the beginnings of understanding the sciences of genetics and biology as they exist in the world today.  A child who understands inteligent design has the basics of understanding religious dogma disguised as science.  ID has in its time produced nothing of value.  Its had no impact on either our understanding of genetics nor biology.  The same CAN'T be said of evolution.
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2008, 12:36:45 PM »

To take a moment to ease off on the IDers let me point out  (what should be obvious really) to the people on the side of science.  Attacking either a general belief in God or a specific belief in the Bible DOES NOT help your case.  Their is absolutely nothing in the theory of evolution that necissarily eliminates the possibility of God.  Its very much worth remembering that Charles Darwin himself at most was willing to cop to being an agnostic NOT an atheist.  Nor for that mater does being religious make people less inteligent, or worse scientists then being an atheist (no matter what patron saint of religion bashing Richard Dawkins says), historically speaking science owes a greater debt to religious men then it does to atheists.  The science of astronomy in fact owes an enormous debt to religion (astrology was after all in most pagan cultures priciply the practice of the priesthood).  Chemistry owes a debt to alchemy. 

For that matter Gregor Mendell was responsible for correcting a mistake made by Darwin.  Today's genetic theories owe a considerable debt to his laws of inheritence which wre originally rejected in favor of Darwins ideas.  In short lets keep the discussion to the matter of whether or not ID is a scientific theory which is a matter for science and not the question of the existence of God which is a matter for Metaphysics. 
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2008, 01:43:54 PM »

Well... the whole supernatural v. natural thing is a different discussion, certainly, but the preponderence of religious identified scientists has little to do with the beneficial impact of religious belief on scientists in question, and much more to do with the ratio of religious to irreligious in the overall population. So, I don't think it's right to say science owes a debt to religion, save in the sense that any advance owes a debt to all that came before.

If gods obey natural laws, they are welcome to exist - I'd be interested in seeing how well they match up to their hype. There's a certain lack of evidence for this being the case, though, at the mo. Maybe that will change in time? Finding some seems a more productive pursuit than ID, anyway.

As someone who takes occasionaly enjoyment in spendiing time pretending very hard that things that are probably not true are actually true, I can't knock it - it's fun. But getting too wrapped up in fantasy can screw you up pretty bad.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2008, 03:56:24 PM »

Okay religion was great!  Back in the days that it was created.  It helped explain alot of the unexplainable.  As Kevin said it helped encorage early sciance.  And helped people to have an 'understanding' of the inexplicable.  But honestly now with modern sciance it does nothing but hinder us.  Any questions humans may pose can be answered with a simple 'god did it'.  Honestly I think the philosiphies of it could be followed but in this day and age it should no longer be taken 'literally'.  Teaching it in schools is takeing a step in the wrong directin.  Seriously I think its time to start weaning people off of religion in genral and start teaching people to 'evolve'. 
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2008, 10:31:31 PM »

still missing the main point I was making.  The question of the existence of God is completely irrelevent to whether or not ID is a science.  If God did exist it wouldn't prove the beleif he created things in 7 days (or 6000 years), or that he didn't do it through evolution.  If God doesn't exist it doesn't prove space aliens didn't geneticly engineer life on this planet. 

Further on a logical note religion bashing isn't going to change peoples minds.   you don't like religion?  Good for you I'm not telling you what to believe.  I don't care much for the enormous stupidities atheism has foistered on us in the political arena (think athiests make good leaders ask Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler).  We can talk for decades about if God exists, doesn't exist or is a platypus like creaturre from Pluto but it has no more to do with the topic.  Does God's existing affect whether or not gravities a scientific theory?
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2008, 04:32:49 AM »

ID=Creationism=Religion...End of story.  Space Aliens who are compleately physical could not construct the universe and all of existance.  For something to intelligently desighn EVERYTHING you would need a god like figure aka 'god'.  Otherwise the theory gets even dumber.  No.  Religion has everything to do with this conversation.  The exsistance of god has everything to do with this.  To say it doesnt is just sheepishly going with the quick cencor of the word 'god' from creation sciance aka 'ID' (That nasty seporation of church and state thing foiling the plans of the church trying to get religon taught as sciance).  So ID implies god as the desighner but leaves it nameless to avoid getting shut down by the court system. This also makes the theory...sorry bullshit more vauge.  So it loses weght even further.  God is the underlying subject here.  Can I prove the nonexistance of god?  No.  That is impossible.  Can I prove that ID is entirely impossible?  Not really.  But as far as ID vs Evo goes the evedance for Evoloution is far more prevailent than evedance of ID.

As far as bible bashing goes.  I never said it would change any opinion about the subject.  If they are dead set in their religion they aint gonna be convinced.  Im just telling it like it is. ID in schools just aint gonna happen friends.  And honestly I dont care how much anyone pisses and moans about it that is how it is...Deal with it.

***
Adolf Hitler an athiest?  Yes he defnately could have been.  But then again he could have not been.  I dont dispute that he didnt pick and choose his Catholic/Prodostant 'supposed' beliefs and used religion to help justify his political motives.  But that one is defanately debateable.

Josief Stalin an athiest?  Yep...Not a very nice guy ether.  Your point?

*** Speaking of off topic arguements  ::)
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2008, 08:31:24 AM »

   The point that is being missed is this: The scientific evidence of how the Universe came about since creation can be very well measured. The age of the Earth is in doubt. No matter how loudly evolution scientist bitch and moan, their data is based on assumptions like where we are in the Universe etc. When looked at from different positions within the Universe, the age of the Earth varies greatly. Evidence on Earth like Ocean silt show that the Earth is considerably younger than Evolutionist suggest. These conclusions are all drawn about because of science. The only thing that can not be shown through science is the actual event of Creation. God may not be within science, but Science and it's laws were created by him to govern the Universe. The actual event of how the Universe came into being Creationist believe was through Divine Intervention. The Evolution model is just as mysterious. Until Evolutionists can explain where the energy came from that caused the big bang, their explaination is just as mysterious and unprovable since we know that Energy can not just suddenly appear.     
    Adaptation within species can be measured and shown to be true absolutely, but since there is absolutely no way of testing or observing transisions between species, that is also a mystery and a hypothesis, not science. Micro evolution is not in debate, Macroevolution most certainly is. I do not see how you dont get this. The leaps of logic within evolution are as great if not greater than those within Creationism.
    You can call it a silly idea, a product of people who are out of touch, whatever you want, but that does not change the fact that it has valid science backing it and the science falls short in the same places where evolutionary science falls short. This country was founded primarily by Christians who would be rolling over in their graves by all the Christian bashing that some of you are doing. Much of what you enjoy as far as freedoms and such stemmed from those same Christian beliefs you seem to love to bash Fox. I would ask you to refrain from it and stick to the facts. I understand you don't believe it, but give the religious part of it a rest. Show me proof of Macroevolution or where the energy came from that caused the Big bang and I will seriously call into doubt some of what I believe, but I know you can't. Many scientists have hypothesized those things and have been proven wrong unless their arguments are as hard to prove as their being no God. There is no goos answers to these questions on both sides without taking effects into play that are mere untestable hypothesis.
Logged

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2008, 01:43:59 PM »

Fox  i suggest you research the idea of ID further.  Dropping questions of the creation of the universe itself their are a minority with iin the ID faithful that believe life on earth was the work of space aliens.  Since Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the larger universe (biology not physics after all) the creation of life by design could occur with out divine intervention (the fact scientists are trying to d precisely that would support that).

Frigmorol you still don't get it. Not one peron in all of science or this board claims evolution is a perfect theory.  Theories are not perfect because science is endlessly changing.  In a century we migh drop evoution as we have other scientific theories.  Inteligent Design has no supporting evidence what so ever.  Take it fo granted the universe is only 6000 years old in wat way does that prove God or any thing else created it?  Maybe it simply popped into being exactly as it is now by a fluke of random chance.  Maybe all of reality is the psychotic delusion of some one from another universe we know nothin about.  We're all just halluicinations in his head not created at all.  For your religion to be science you need to show some evidence of its tenants.  Evolution says species change and adapt over time.  We know this, you've admitted it.  Creation says life just magicly appeared one day exactly the way it is because God said so.  We can't prove this because it only happened once and will never happen again.  The mechanisms by which it occured can not be seen, can not be tested, and can not be repeated.  Therefore its NOT science.  Like it or not the basic mechanism of evolution is testable, repeatable and observable.  You can't argue it you've admitted it yourself when you said species adapt over tme.  Thats evolution. 

I'm going to ask this again although increasingly I think this is a waste of time.  With respect you seem to not grasp the basics of the scientific method or what qualifies as a theory and what qualifies as religous dogma.  Prove God created the human species. Take it as granted that the universe is only 6000 years old (or 600 or 6 million or what ever you like pick your own number).  Take it as granted that no species has ever evolved into another species that they onyl change with in the same species.  Now prove God or any thing else did it externally.  Don't tell me about leaps of logic, don't tell me about what we don't know and for heaven's sake DON'T TELL ME WHY EVOLUTION IS WRONG.  Proving a scientific theory demands you offer evidence of its accuracy not the innacuracy of another theory.  If you can't do that (and I think if you could you would have by now) then the fact is your dealing in faith not logic and not science.

Does science have all the answers?  No.  But science is a serious effort to understand and test the universe.   Its constantly adapting to new evidence.  The Evolutionary biology of today is not what it was in Darwin's time nor will it be the same in a century.  ID on the other hand never changes, never adapts.  It takes one book as the whole of its evidence and wastes time trying to prove other people wrong wih out proving itself right.  Evolution does have unknowns (although far less then creatiionsts claim so many things they say are wrong and were disproven a long time ago the evidence of the the age of the universe is overwelming and if any thing recent discoveries (as opposed to tests done decades ago) suggest its even older then we first thought NOT younger) but it continues to change and ask why its wrong.  ID just takes itself as fact and explains any thing it doesn't accuont for as divine intevention.

Also popular opinion even among scientists is absoluely worthless.  Science is based on evidence not what people want o believe.  Telling me a minority of scientists (who almost with out exception started as christians trying to prove their religious beliefs) think evolution is a lie is meaningless.  In the middle ages the majority of authorities thuoght demons caused people to get sick.  Many many people today (christian scientists for example) reject germ theory as well.  Should we agree with them just because its been taken seriously for thousands of years or should we rely on wht can be tested and demonstrated?  If we follow your reasoning we need to reject all of medical science becuase as much evidence exists that the common cold is caused by Satan and not a virus as exists that ID and not Evoluion started the life on this world.
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2008, 01:32:55 PM »

still missing the main point I was making.  The question of the existence of God is completely irrelevant to whether or not ID is a science.  If God did exist it wouldn't prove the beleif he created things in 7 days (or 6000 years), or that he didn't do it through evolution.  If God doesn't exist it doesn't prove space aliens didn't geneticly engineer life on this planet.

Not missing, just not really caring. I kinda noted that whether anything supernatural can exist was a separate discussion. And of course proving one or the other does not necessarily prove both of two given scenarios, unless they necessitate each other by definition. It's just that neither a supernatural creator or some form of planetary seeding is well supported by the available evidence at this point, despite the prevalence of both these ideas in fiction.

Further on a logical note religion bashing isn't going to change peoples minds.   you don't like religion?  Good for you I'm not telling you what to believe.

More the point, WHETHER to believe, I should think.

I don't care much for the enormous stupidities atheism has foistered on us in the political arena (think athiests make good leaders ask Joseph Stalin or Adolph Hitler).

Because Stalin and Hitler were great champions of rationalism? They rejected religious institutions and such as challenges to their own power, in as much as anything else.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2008, 03:10:32 PM »

Its what to believe not whether.  Atheism is as much a matter of faith as any other religion or philisophical beleif.  The only thing that really doesn't qualify as faith is the agnostic position of not knowing.  NOthing in science supports or rejects the existence of God so belief that God does or does not exist is not a scientific matter. 

As for Hitler and Stalin being the great champions of atheism yes absolutely.  They murdered and tortured people who believed in God, the rejected any form of religion personally and treated those who beleive with contempt.  Make Richard Dawkins a very small ammount mroe militant and he'd make an excelent Stalin.  You can argue that they are bad examples of atheism but the fact is every time in history atheists have taken power they have been at least as horrible as any religious regime.  Compare the founding fathers who were predominantly christian with two notable exceptions (deists Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin both while critical of organized religion were staunch supporters of Christian ethics and believers in God if not the idea he intervened in human affairs) to atheist V I Lenin who murdered the Czar, his wife and children, Stalin and his imprisonment of any one who disagreed, or Hitler and his mass slaughter.  Christians as leaders have made their mistakes but the idea that atheists are any better is as much blind faith as the idea that God exists.
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"

SigmaCaine

  • Guest
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2008, 05:39:28 PM »

You can argue that they are bad examples of atheism but the fact is every time in history atheists have taken power they have been at least as horrible as any religious regime. 

Which says a lot more about the nature of people in general - and especially those who seek power - than any argument about religion.
Logged

Fox McCloud

  • Dobakiin
  • Senior Staff
  • Mega Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
  • Double Exposure Secret Police
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2008, 07:05:59 AM »

Quote
ID faithful that believe life on earth was the work of space aliens.

Okay...Then tell me how those space aliens came about?....Other space aliens...And some other space aliens before them....Do some reasarch yourself.  Who are the main advocates for ID in the classroom?  Do the history on how ID went from Creationism to ID.

Also...Dont give me that America was founded by christians shit.  What?  The founding fathers beleved it so I should to?  Seriously.  Just cause its the christian way,  you dont have to make an appeal to athoraty to everything. 

(would go on but I gotta run out the door.  Fun convo by the way  ;D)

Quote
Atheism is as much a matter of faith as any other religion or philisophical beleif

Oh and...Not really...Its more of a 'not buying it' thing then a beleif.  And there is a notable difference between religion and philosophy.  Religion is based around faith and beleaving in something.  Philosophy is just an orginized set of ideas.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2008, 07:09:59 AM by Fox McCloud »
Logged
"What the lion cannot manage to do, the Fox can."  -German Proverb

"The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting by fools."
Thucydides

"House Ares!  HOAH!"

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2008, 01:56:20 PM »

Its what to believe not whether.  Atheism is as much a matter of faith as any other religion or philisophical beleif.  The only thing that really doesn't qualify as faith is the agnostic position of not knowing.

Here you are conflating meanings of the word 'belief'. It would not be entirely incorrect to so I believe the sun will come up tomorrow, but it would be incorrect to therefore infer I have some sort of religious faith in the prospect. Belief, in the religious sense, is about faith, about taking something to be true without any sort of evidence, or without seeking any sort of evidence. I understand this to be considered something of a virtue in many religions.

I don't believe I'll be struck by lightning while walking out to get a sandwich this afternoon. I also don't believe in the supernatural. These are more appropriately equated usages of the word - they are suppositions based on my knowledge of existing facts and probabilities. They are not articles of faith.

NOthing in science supports or rejects the existence of God so belief that God does or does not exist is not a scientific matter.
 

I would say that the absolute lack of evidence for something existing, is a fairly decent argument against it being the case. It is not, strictly speaking, possible to prove a negative case, so "science" has a similarly difficult time disproving the very possibility that unicorns and fairies and dragons exist, but I am comfortable enough in the assumption that they will not be found to thrive presently on some secluded island.

As for Hitler and Stalin being the great champions of atheism yes absolutely. They murdered and tortured people who believed in God, the rejected any form of religion personally and treated those who beleive with contempt.

IIRC, Hitler's beef was not with religiousity in general, but with pretty much every religion he encountered that didn't work with his personal philosophy and political ideology. Haven't done a lot of reading on it, though. As for Stalin, 's kinda like saying Khomeini was a great champion of Islam, innit?

Besides which, I think you're better off citing Hoxha's regime as an example of state atheism gone bad.

Make Richard Dawkins a very small ammount mroe militant and he'd make an excelent Stalin.

Dawkins isn't, to the best of my knowledge, the member of any revolutionary parties, nor does he seem particularly interested in overthrowing existing states in order to either form a vanguard for the proletariat or to restore to imagined former prominence some ahistorical fiction of his own 'race', or even his own country. I'd love to know where your find a basis for this claim?

You can argue that they are bad examples of atheism but the fact is every time in history atheists have taken power they have been at least as horrible as any religious regime.

As a non-religion, and really non-philosophy, but more of a blanket term used to either denigrate political/philosophical rivals or a self-descriptor adopted by the areligious, and generally something of a minority viewpoint in the course of human events, it's kind of hard to ascribe to 'atheism' the evils of authoritarian Marxist revolutionaries.

Compare the founding fathers who were predominantly christian with two notable exceptions (deists Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin both while critical of organized religion were staunch supporters of Christian ethics and believers in God if not the idea he intervened in human affairs) to atheist V I Lenin who murdered the Czar, his wife and children, Stalin and his imprisonment of any one who disagreed, or Hitler and his mass slaughter.  Christians as leaders have made their mistakes but the idea that atheists are any better is as much blind faith as the idea that God exists.

This is just a horrible mish-mash of blah. What sort of mistakes are you referring to? The entire history of Europe? Nicely downplayed.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2008, 05:18:51 PM »

Calling Atheism non religion?  Accuate.  Calling it nn phiosophy?  Sorry no.  its a collection of beliefs based on faith not fact.  As for your tired arguement that the lack of proof is proof sorry no its not thats a fallacy.  Lack of evidence is not evidence end of discussion.  If oyu think it is try researching the concept of logical fallacies because thats a common one (popular with the atheists I must say).  As for Dawkins being militant I didn't say he was a revolutionary I said if you went a little farther down the road of extremism he's on you wind up at Stalin's belief we need to murder every one who thinks their is a God.  Dawkins is as much a fanatic as any baptist minister.

As for the founding fathers never said you should be christian because they were.  What I did was point out that a country founded by christian men is a better place to live then any country run and founded by atheists.
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"

KevinM

  • Junior Meeper
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • Delaware Valley Demonology Research
Re: Evolution, Creationism (I"m sorry Inteligent Design) and Science
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2008, 05:20:45 PM »

As for aliens and ID you're again missing the point.  I'm not saying its the main support for ID but it is an alternative to God.  As for who created the aliens its erally not relevant to how life started here is it?  Nor is any of it relevent to the point i was making that the existence or non existence of God does not actually in any way invalidate or support the idea that life was created by design rather then by accident. 
Logged
"I am The Master, you will obey me"
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up