|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-19-2009, 03:25 PM | #71 (permalink) |
;)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 3,503
|
not everyone's going to be a scientist, or a mathematician, or a writer, or a linguist, but everyone's probably going to ask "where did we come from and why" at some point. yet we avoid teaching religion and philosophy in secondary school and instead focus on retaining specialized knowledge which will be mostly useless in the long run. that makes a lot of sense. and we won't know the impact on society until we change things... that's the beauty and downfall of social theory.
|
03-19-2009, 03:33 PM | #72 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 94
|
why does it always come down to religion and science?? everyone thinks religion is against science for some reason. i'm sure there are your religious fanatics that will discredit science but they have there own agendas. science can be used to back up the creation theory but you have bring god into it as well. the whole god created the world and we evolved from nothing are only the theories as to how we began. beyond that everything is science and not doesn't involve the religion aspect.
Last edited by punkrawker07; 03-19-2009 at 04:03 PM. |
03-19-2009, 03:46 PM | #73 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 94
|
a point i might add here is that the theory of creation doesn't necessarily mean we were created by the god of the bible. it could be that we were created by some kind of being whether it be god, aliens, or maybe we are just a lab experiment by a superior race watching to see what we do. that sounds crazy to me but the point is that i believe we were created by someone or something way more complex and knowledgable then us.
|
03-19-2009, 03:54 PM | #74 (permalink) |
;)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 3,503
|
which means that that thing must have been created by something way more complex than it, and that thing by something more complex than it, etc etc into infinity. you should probably rethink your strategy. unless that spiraling infinite model of the universe is ok with you... i like it but i would try to make it more circular.
|
03-19-2009, 04:01 PM | #75 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 94
|
good point. i was more or less trying to separate the religion aspect of it which instantly if you don't believe in religion throws away the creation theory and leaves you with evolution, but i guess that doesn't work really either. my head is beginning to hurt though so mainly i have no problems with both theories being taught in school. if you want to continue to debate evolution hopefully someone with more knowledge than me comes in here.
|
03-19-2009, 05:03 PM | #77 (permalink) | |||
Juicious Maximus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
|
Quote:
It contains unsourced statements and says naive things like that bacterias way less than 10-12 grams (well, of course they do .. a bacteria at 10-12 grams would be a ****ing monster). Irreducable complexity has been pushed as a creationist argument, but it doesn't hold water. The first claim I read and became a popular argument against evolution was that bacterial flagella could not have evolved because a transitional stage would serve no purpose .. and as such, the proto-flagella which would be a requirement to evolve the real flagella could not be evolved. That claim was forwarded by creationist pseudoscientists in a very unscientifical manner and has since subsequently been refuted by biologists. Again, Wikipedia sums it up so nicely, so I'll just copy and paste from there : Quote:
Now .. seriously .. You should take this to heart : If you want scientific knowledge, don't go and get it from a creationist website. What are you thinking? You've written about the importance of being a sceptic more than once, yet that doesn't stop you from quoting a load of crap from one of the biggest ****factories out there. Furthermore, and I have to say this irritates me greatly, you and that website are deliberately misquoting Charles Darwin which I find quite hard to swallow. The sentences posted on that site are taken out of their context and if you include the rest of Darwin's message, the point becomes in fact the opposite! Quote:
Please, for God's, Darwin's, yourself or anyone's sake, don't be such a ****ing tool. These people only want to corrupt and hide the truth from you, even to the point where they are twisting Darwin's words to support creationism. You preach scepticism, so practice it!
__________________
Something Completely Different Last edited by Guybrush; 03-19-2009 at 05:30 PM. |
|||
03-20-2009, 12:02 AM | #78 (permalink) | |
Reformed Jackass
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,964
|
Quote:
There is no scientific basis for believing (Key word here: believing) in intelligent design. It is not a theory. |
|
03-20-2009, 08:44 AM | #80 (permalink) | |
Juicious Maximus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
|
Quote:
To me it sounds logical that if we humans know nothing of where we come from, what happens after you die, what's the meaning of life and so on, then ideas that give answer to those questions are gonna pop up and become popular.
__________________
Something Completely Different |
|
|