"Fundies say the darndest things!"

[Frankly]

Basically if you're going to let the evolutionist religion into the schools you should let all religions into the schools. A large part of religion is your belief in how the world started, for evolutonists it's a belief that life sprang forth from nothing. This is completely unproven, so therefore it takes "faith" to believe it. Evolution also relies on a GOD-like all powerful, unseen force. They call this force "Nature", and they speak of nature as if it's some sort of being. I've heard many scientists make statements like "nature has a way of making things happen". "Nature" apparently not only caused life to "miraculously" spring forth from where there was no life before, it then also guided that life through billions of years of evolution, sounds like a job for a "god" to me. So you have an unproven theory about the origin of life, a god-like unseen force that's guiding your unproven theory, and the believers put their "faith" into believing this unproven theory even though they can't prove it. Sounds like a religion to me. So if you believe in an unproven theory and that your "god" (nature) brought forth life and guided the evolutionary process for billions of years to create the world, you're a "scientist". But if your God just created everything in a short period of time, then you're a weak minded individual that needs a mental crutch (religion) to lean on. And who's forcing their religion on whom???

This guy is better than me, and he's serious!

[firebirdV]

This guy is better than me, and he's serious!

Yeah, I was going to try and disect his statement, but it would just aggravate me and give me a headache whilst achieving nothing. Therefore you got the abridged version.

Edit

Actually, it's pretty difficult to even counter something like that, there's not much one can say. Maybe a 'you don't understand what you're talking about' or two, but when someone doesn't want to understand, it gets a bit sticky.

[theboatcandream]

Basically if you're going to let the evolutionist religion into the schools you should let all religions into the schools.

Evolution isn't a religion. It's based on science, not faith.

A large part of religion is your belief in how the world started, for evolutonists it's a belief that life sprang forth from nothing.

Thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand evolution.

Evolution also relies on a GOD-like all powerful, unseen force.

Thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand evolution.

"Nature" apparently not only caused life to "miraculously" spring forth from where there was no life before, it then also guided that life through billions of years of evolution, sounds like a job for a "god" to me.

Hmm. I haven't heard electromagnetism described as a "god-like force" before, but if that's how you feel then so be it.

So you have an unproven theory about the origin of life, a god-like unseen force that's guiding your unproven theory, and the believers put their "faith" into believing this unproven theory even though they can't prove it. Sounds like a religion to me.

Mmmm... no. Evolutionary theory is the result of observation and science, not faith or magic.


Just as a sidenote: It's possible for God to have created life, but for evolution to also be true starting when life began. Evolution is a process that happens to living organisms across generations. Evolution has little to nothing to do with the origin of life itself.

[tonedeaf1]

Go ahead firebirdV explain how life started in the evolutionary religious belief system. Enlighten me, I be stoopit.

[theboatcandream]

Boat, I don't see why you're attempting to counter what has been said on here with unrelated issues that have not been covered.

And I don't see why you're accusing me of such a thing.

We've been talking about heritage and the silliness of trying to rid the public sphere of that, and the inconsistency of people who try to only rid the public sphere of marks of Christian heritage whilst not doing the same with marks of Native American heritage.

If you want to teach people about Christianity, that's nice.

If you want to teach it as fact, then that's something else. And if you want to teach about Christianity but not about other faiths, then we might have a bit of a problem on our hands.

Actually, it's pretty difficult to even counter something like that, there's not much one can say. Maybe a 'you don't understand what you're talking about' or two, but when someone doesn't want to understand, it gets a bit sticky.

Yeah, it's ultimately pointless in most cases as well. I usually find that people who are very religious start off with certain conclusions and then look for evidence to back up their beliefs (as opposed to looking at the evidence then forming conclusions based on the evidence at hand).

Still, it isn't so difficult to respond to posts like that because all you need to do is show in very plain terms how their attacks are spurious.

[theboatcandream]

Go ahead firebirdV explain how life started in the evolutionary religious belief system. Enlighten me, I be stoopit.

Evolution is a process that happens to living organisms across generations. Evolution has little to nothing to do with the origin of life itself. It's possible that God created life then left evolution to "do its thing".

[firebirdV]

Go ahead firebirdV explain how life started in the evolutionary religious belief system. Enlighten me, I be stoopit.

People go to school for years to understand this kind of stuff, not even a book would give you a nice answer. Besides, I'm more interested in physics at the moment.

This doesn't really detract from my point, there are many things in this world that aren't intuitive or obvious. It's very easy to make it seem like they are wrong, especially when the target audience (or the debater) knows little about them.

You wouldn't like it if I paraphrased the bible (which I've never read) in a few paragraphs, would you?

[theboatcandream]

You wouldn't like it if I paraphrased the bible (which I've never read) in a few paragraphs, would you?

"Be nice. The rest is filler."

Done!

[tonedeaf1]

God could have created life? That's progress. I like your replies, they all just boil down to "you're wrong, so there". Hmmm the theory of an electromagnetic evolution guidance system, so are you suggesting that electromagnetism can think and act? So if God created life and let it evolve, that's not a religious theory, But if He just skipped the evolution part, then that IS a religious theory???

[firebirdV]

God could have created life? That's progress. I like your replies, they all just boil down to "you're wrong, so there". Hmmm the theory of an electromagnetic evolution guidance system, so are you suggesting that electromagnetism can think and act? So if God created life and let it evolve, that's not a religious theory, But if He just skipped the evolution part, then that IS a religious theory???

No

The theory is evolution and has nothing (AFAIK) to do with where life began. This doesn't include or exclude religious beliefs about the origin of life.

[tonedeaf1]

Life can't evolve until it has started living first.

[Jonny R]

And I don't see why you're accusing me of such a thing.

Yes, I think that's fairly clear. Despite the clear explanations.

[tonedeaf1]

So if two people both believe God created life, but one believes he started with a simple life and let it evolve, and the other believes he skipped the multi-billion year wait and created more complex life forms, how is one belief religious and the other non-religious when neither can "prove" the "religion" they chose to put their "faith" into.

[theboatcandream]

God could have created life? That's progress. I like your replies, they all just boil down to "you're wrong, so there". Hmmm the theory of an electromagnetic evolution guidance system, so are you suggesting that electromagnetism can think and act? So if God created life and let it evolve, that's not a religious theory, But if He just skipped the evolution part, then that IS a religious theory???

In a lot of cases, you are wrong (so there). You simply don't understand what evolutionary theory is, so when you describe it and attempt to disprove it, you're disproving something other than evolutionary theory. So there.

Electromagnetism governs all biochemical reactions, including mutation.

I'm saying that the creation of life and the evolution of life after life came into existence are two seperate issues. Personally, I think life evolved out of primordial RNA which led to the first bacteria and then bacteria evolved into multicellular life and so on until you have human beings three billion years later. But because evolution doesn't have anything to do with the creation of life itself, evolution doesn't say anything about whether or not God created life. Evolution simply describes a well established well observed process that organisms undergo across generations.

Life can't evolve until it has started living first.

Ok. But evolution has nothing to do with how life started. The theory is entirely to do with what happened to life after life started.

[theboatcandream]

So if two people both believe God created life, but one believes he started with a simple life and let it evolve, and the other believes he skipped the multi-billion year wait and created more complex life forms, how is one belief religious and the other non-religious when neither can "prove" the "religion" they chose to put their "faith" into.

The one who thinks that God created life and then let life evolve is relying less on faith than the guy who says that God created life and that evolution is a lie. This is because evolution is not a religion - evolutionary theory is based on observation and objective fact.

[Jonny R]

In a lot of cases, you are wrong (so there). You simply don't understand what evolutionary theory is, so when you describe it and attempt to disprove it, you're disproving something other than evolutionary theory. So there.

I see that in action a lot with people 'describing' then attacking Christianity actually. Just a little aside...

[sosomething]

So if two people both believe God created life, but one believes he started with a simple life and let it evolve, and the other believes he skipped the multi-billion year wait and created more complex life forms, how is one belief religious and the other non-religious when neither can "prove" the "religion" they chose to put their "faith" into.

I think you just nailed it, but hang on for a quick second. There's something about this argument (and most big arguments) to consider.

All the various minds of man are pretty generally the same. Given the same information in the same context, with the same time to process it, all people will tend to arrive to pretty similar conclusions. When there is a big divide in conclusions between two groups of people, more often than not, they're arguing two different points without realizing it, because somewhere waaaaaay back in the fundamental basis of their points, there is a conceptual fracture in the NATURE of their arguments that renders their conclusions unrelatable to each other.

The little gem you've found here looks like this to me:

The argument between evolutionists and creationists always seems to go down to "The existence of God" versus "The reality of evolution," but this is like arguing that "pink is a color" versus "clouds look fluffy."

I think the general consensus is that, with or without the explanation of evolution for the development of life, there is still no scientific answer for the ORIGIN of life, so the argument of Creationism versus Evolutionism can only take place after that point - whether or not God created all creatures pretty much as they are, or SOMETHING caused life to happen to a single-cell organism and time and probability took over from there.

In THIS sense, there is virtually no difference between evolution and creationism in terms of scientific validity, because they are both fundamentally based on the given existence of life in the first place, for which we have no scientific explanation.

Is this right?

[theboatcandream]

I see that in action a lot with people 'describing' then attacking Christianity actually. Just a little aside...

I guess it's the difference between speaking tongue in cheek and being ignorant.


@sosomething: Here's the problem. If they admit that Evolution is correct, or at least possible, then they admit that the Bible isn't 100% correct. And if they admit that the Bible isn't 100% correct, then a lot of other beliefs become vulnerable, including the Belief that God exists and that God created life.

[firebirdV]

I see that in action a lot with people 'describing' then attacking Christianity actually. Just a little aside...

Don't make me wake up the lions...

[firebirdV]

I think you just nailed it, but hang on for a quick second. There's something about this argument (and most big arguments) to consider.

All the various minds of man are pretty generally the same. Given the same information in the same context, with the same time to process it, all people will tend to arrive to pretty similar conclusions. When there is a big divide in conclusions between two groups of people, more often than not, they're arguing two different points without realizing it, because somewhere waaaaaay back in the fundamental basis of their points, there is a conceptual fracture in the NATURE of their arguments that renders their conclusions unrelatable to each other.

The little gem you've found here looks like this to me:

The argument between evolutionists and creationists always seems to go down to "The existence of God" versus "The reality of evolution," but this is like arguing that "pink is a color" versus "clouds look fluffy."

I think the general consensus is that, with or without the explanation of evolution for the development of life, there is still no scientific answer for the ORIGIN of life, so the argument of Creationism versus Evolutionism can only take place after that point - whether or not God created all creatures pretty much as they are, or SOMETHING caused life to happen to a single-cell organism and time and probability took over from there.

In THIS sense, there is virtually no difference between evolution and creationism in terms of scientific validity, because they are both fundamentally based on the given existence of life in the first place, for which we have no scientific explanation.

Is this right?

I have to disagree, but I also have to go to bed. So I'll leave this to someone else (or not, we'll see tomorrow afternoon).