| Author |
Message |
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
 Thu May 05, 2005 9:57 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Looks like we're back to pushing athiesm on people. |
I'm for that considering some people *which will remain nameless* always try to push the fact that they think god created everything. I'm up for alittle Athiesm.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 10:07 pm |
|
Pushing either one is wrong. Representation is fine.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
AndrewBullock
The Misguided One
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 2112
Location: Kentucky. (North America)
|
| Thu May 05, 2005 10:36 pm |
|
Science is the persued course to discover the truth. (What ever your looking for, that is)
We have no proof that God put us here. But we don't have any proof that he didn't put us here either. Each and everyone of us will find out when our time comes.
98% of the worlds population today believes in a higher power of some kind. No matter if it's multiple figures or one...
I do believe in a higher power because I find a comfort in it that even when times go bad I can depend on him.
People just need to leave it alone. If he lives or not we still have to live our lives. It's your choice on how you want to live it though. Weather you want to mutilate yourself or something like that. It's 100% choice. Pain and anger or love and care. You chose, but don't bash other people for wanting to believe that there is a place they can go when death happens... that they can go be with someone that died in there family or be with a loved writer or passed away actor.
But i'm not going to get started on my philosophical belifes because I get to into it and say things I don't mean...
~Andrew
-------signature-------
"Our integrity sells for so little, but it is all we really have. It is the very last inch of us. But within that inch we are free"
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 12:51 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | I called him a Liberal. However, Link, Liberal is NOT a political party in this country. I was just showing my amazement about some of the things you believe, being that you are supposedly "Catholic," although I'm questioning that. Either way, I don't want to get in a fight with you, so I'll drop it. I don't want to be mean 
Otherwise, Founder, you are right. And I believe Judaism was started around 1,000 BC. Before 600 BC. |
uh, no. Prophetic Judeaism was started in 750 BC.
And remember BC Counts Down to zero If Zarathustra lived 150 years after Prophetic Judaism was started, 750 - 150 = 600.
And by calling me a liberal, it infers politics, no different then if I were to call you conservative on everything.
| Founder wrote: | | If its been proven then why is it still a theory? |
Because we live in a day where if two scientist proves something is fact, one other relies on backwards data to prove it wrong. Evolution is one of these, as is Global Warming.
| Founder wrote: | | I love when Athiests try to use that stupid notion to try and prove thats the Jews simply stole the idea of Jesus from that and thats how the Religions were formed. That theory only furthers my belief. Every Religion in the World believes in the same God. Perhaps that prophet invisioned the birth of Jesus? Thus his vision came into fruition when Jesus was born. No, thats too hard to believe. No it can't be that. Not at all. |
You know little, and yet you still post things like this.
Study up on Zoroastrianism a bit, learn for yourself.
| Quote: | Zoroastrian Beliefs:
Beliefs include:
A single god Ahura Mazda who is supreme. Communication between Himself and humans is by a number of Attributes, called Amesha Spentas or Bounteous Immortals. Within the Gathas, the original Zoroastrian sacred text, these Immortals are sometimes described as concepts, and are sometimes personified.
One school of thought promotes a cosmic dualism between:
--An all powerful God Ahura Mazda who is the only deity worthy of being worshipped, and
--An evil spirit of violence and death, Angra Mainyu, who opposes Ahura Mazda.
The resulting cosmic conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity who is required to choose which to follow. Evil, and the Spirit of Evil, will be completely destroyed at the end of time. Dualism will come to an end and Goodness will be all in all.
Another school of thought perceives the battle between Good and Evil as an ethical dualism, set within the human consciousness.
--Asha is a form of righteous, all encompassing, natural law.
After death, the urvan (soul) is allowed three days to meditate on his/her past life. The soul is then judged by a troika Mithra, Sraosha and Rashnu. If the good thoughts, words and deeds outweigh the bad, then the soul is taken into heaven. Otherwise, the soul is led to hell.
-The universe will go through three eras:
--creation;
--the present world where good and evil are mixed. People's good works are seen as gradually transforming the world towards its heavenly ideal;
--and a final state after this renovation when good and evil will be separated.
Eventually, everything will be purified. Even the occupants of hell will be released.
--A Saoshyant (savior) will be born of a virgin, but of the lineage of the Prophet Zoroaster who will raise the dead and judge everyone in a final judgment.
A jumble of various facts from different sites
http://www.avesta.org/zfaq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/universal_religion.html |
-------signature-------
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." President Thomas Jefferson
"A man's respect for law and order exists in precise relationship to the size of his paycheck." Adam Clayton Powell Jr.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 3:00 am |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | I called him a Liberal. However, Link, Liberal is NOT a political party in this country. I was just showing my amazement about some of the things you believe, being that you are supposedly "Catholic," although I'm questioning that. Either way, I don't want to get in a fight with you, so I'll drop it. I don't want to be mean
Otherwise, Founder, you are right. And I believe Judaism was started around 1,000 BC. Before 600 BC. |
uh, no. Prophetic Judeaism was started in 750 BC.
And remember BC Counts Down to zero If Zarathustra lived 150 years after Prophetic Judaism was started, 750 - 150 = 600.
And by calling me a liberal, it infers politics, no different then if I were to call you conservative on everything.
| Founder wrote: | | If its been proven then why is it still a theory? |
Because we live in a day where if two scientist proves something is fact, one other relies on backwards data to prove it wrong. Evolution is one of these, as is Global Warming.
| Founder wrote: | | I love when Athiests try to use that stupid notion to try and prove thats the Jews simply stole the idea of Jesus from that and thats how the Religions were formed. That theory only furthers my belief. Every Religion in the World believes in the same God. Perhaps that prophet invisioned the birth of Jesus? Thus his vision came into fruition when Jesus was born. No, thats too hard to believe. No it can't be that. Not at all. |
You know little, and yet you still post things like this.
Study up on Zoroastrianism a bit, learn for yourself.
| Quote: | Zoroastrian Beliefs:
Beliefs include:
A single god Ahura Mazda who is supreme. Communication between Himself and humans is by a number of Attributes, called Amesha Spentas or Bounteous Immortals. Within the Gathas, the original Zoroastrian sacred text, these Immortals are sometimes described as concepts, and are sometimes personified.
One school of thought promotes a cosmic dualism between:
--An all powerful God Ahura Mazda who is the only deity worthy of being worshipped, and
--An evil spirit of violence and death, Angra Mainyu, who opposes Ahura Mazda.
The resulting cosmic conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity who is required to choose which to follow. Evil, and the Spirit of Evil, will be completely destroyed at the end of time. Dualism will come to an end and Goodness will be all in all.
Another school of thought perceives the battle between Good and Evil as an ethical dualism, set within the human consciousness.
--Asha is a form of righteous, all encompassing, natural law.
After death, the urvan (soul) is allowed three days to meditate on his/her past life. The soul is then judged by a troika Mithra, Sraosha and Rashnu. If the good thoughts, words and deeds outweigh the bad, then the soul is taken into heaven. Otherwise, the soul is led to hell.
-The universe will go through three eras:
--creation;
--the present world where good and evil are mixed. People's good works are seen as gradually transforming the world towards its heavenly ideal;
--and a final state after this renovation when good and evil will be separated.
Eventually, everything will be purified. Even the occupants of hell will be released.
--A Saoshyant (savior) will be born of a virgin, but of the lineage of the Prophet Zoroaster who will raise the dead and judge everyone in a final judgment.
A jumble of various facts from different sites
http://www.avesta.org/zfaq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/universal_religion.html |
|
Ok, I read it. It changed nothing. My beliefs are still here. Too bad for you. All that did was strengthen it. Whats wrong? Want me to say that my Religion is based off someone elses? Everyone influences everyone. Why? because we are one. What is your point?
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 8:49 am |
|
My point was, people should actully study up before they try to get into not only an ethical argument, but a historic one as well.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 5:28 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | My point was, people should actully study up before they try to get into not only an ethical argument, but a historic one as well. |
And we have studied up. Founder's only proved more points, which I agree with, and it has strengthened my wavering faith as well.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 6:09 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | It is a theory that has been proven over and over again in testing.
And my party affiliation has nothing to do with this, Leave it to you to bring Political parties into it. I'm a scientist. I do my own research to find if there is a god or not.
I do not believe something written years ago based off the ideas of a "Prophet" who was chastizing society in the name of god. Those who've studied should know him, His name is Zarathustra, but the Greeks and Romans called him Zoroaster.
Zoroastrianism is an outline for christianity. Ethical dualism (A side of good and Righeousness and a side of evil and darkness) was one of his ideas, as well as the thought that a Sarshyat (or savior) would be born of a virgin, ressurect the dead and judge the world at the end.
Sound Familier?
Oh, and Zarathustra lived in 600BC, about 150 years after Prophethic Judaism was started. |
Just wondering (this is genuine); why call yourself Catholic when you don't believe in a lot of the bible? (If you don't want to say then don't, it's quite personal). Also a lot of the bible can be explained by scientific fact, which wouldn't contradict your beliefs in science. Science the how, religion the why.
I wouldn't agree with the explaination of theories though, I would view that more of them are counted as theories because some scientists interpret the information available in different ways, or that there isn't all the information. The big bang was believed to be a "certain" theory, but is becoming a little less accepted as total fact.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 6:28 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | It is a theory that has been proven over and over again in testing.
And my party affiliation has nothing to do with this, Leave it to you to bring Political parties into it. I'm a scientist. I do my own research to find if there is a god or not.
I do not believe something written years ago based off the ideas of a "Prophet" who was chastizing society in the name of god. Those who've studied should know him, His name is Zarathustra, but the Greeks and Romans called him Zoroaster.
Zoroastrianism is an outline for christianity. Ethical dualism (A side of good and Righeousness and a side of evil and darkness) was one of his ideas, as well as the thought that a Sarshyat (or savior) would be born of a virgin, ressurect the dead and judge the world at the end.
Sound Familier?
Oh, and Zarathustra lived in 600BC, about 150 years after Prophethic Judaism was started. |
Just wondering (this is genuine); why call yourself Catholic when you don't believe in a lot of the bible? (If you don't want to say then don't, it's quite personal). Also a lot of the bible can be explained by scientific fact, which wouldn't contradict your beliefs in science. Science the how, religion the why.
I wouldn't agree with the explaination of theories though, I would view that more of them are counted as theories because some scientists interpret the information available in different ways, or that there isn't all the information. The big bang was believed to be a "certain" theory, but is becoming a little less accepted as total fact. |
Is this all to Link, because I quite agree with you there. Well put.
And just in case it WAS for me, I just believe in Intelligent Design, not creationism.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 7:20 pm |
|
And yet intellegent Design IS creationism minus the name God.
| Jeremy wrote: | Just wondering (this is genuine); why call yourself Catholic when you don't believe in a lot of the bible? (If you don't want to say then don't, it's quite personal). Also a lot of the bible can be explained by scientific fact, which wouldn't contradict your beliefs in science. Science the how, religion the why.
I wouldn't agree with the explaination of theories though, I would view that more of them are counted as theories because some scientists interpret the information available in different ways, or that there isn't all the information. The big bang was believed to be a "certain" theory, but is becoming a little less accepted as total fact. |
it is a valid question. The same reason a soldier will get up at the same time everyday, even if he's on military leave. You cannot just simply forget something that has been drilled into you for years.
I consider myself a scientific Roman catholic. I do believe some of it, but I like to test it myself to make sure the facts hold up.
And last I checked most scientists had agreed with a version of "Big Bang" but were calling it something else. The fact that all the stars are moving in a diretion away from a centerpoint is substancial proof to the claim anyway.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 7:23 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | And yet intellegent Design IS creationism minus the name God. |
No, it's not. There are some differences, the main difference is that Intelligent Design actually does offer valid scientific explanations. Creationism just stresses Biblical interpretations, with pseudo-scentific evidence to support it. Intelligent Design's main epithet is that life is so complex that it could not have originated with an intelligent entity to create it, and that there is evidence of such an entity within DNA and other instances of life.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 7:25 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | And yet intellegent Design IS creationism minus the name God. |
No, it's not. There are some differences, the main difference is that Intelligent Design actually does offer valid scientific explanations. Creationism just stresses Biblical interpretations, with pseudo-scentific evidence to support it. Intelligent Design's main epithet is that life is so complex that it could not have originated with an intelligent entity to create it, and that there is evidence of such an entity within DNA and other instances of life. |
Thank you for explaining that. That is right. And you know, I bet it could be confirmed as a scientific theory, to boot. They should try that. Then you couldn't argue against it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri May 06, 2005 7:27 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Thank you for explaining that. That is right. And you know, I bet it could be confirmed as a scientific theory, to boot. They should try that. Then you couldn't argue against it. |
That is what I'm pointing out. Arguing it as a method of alleviating secularist propagation in schools is not the way to promote a theory that is supposed to be "scientific." I still see Intelligent Design as too philosophical for my tastes, but if people begin to promote it for use in schools as a scientific theory, then I welcome that challenge--challenge is what makes science expand and human horizons expand along with it. All the great theories, evolution included, were once repressed and considered scientifically "heretical."
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sat May 07, 2005 5:41 pm |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | And yet intellegent Design IS creationism minus the name God.
| Jeremy wrote: | Just wondering (this is genuine); why call yourself Catholic when you don't believe in a lot of the bible? (If you don't want to say then don't, it's quite personal). Also a lot of the bible can be explained by scientific fact, which wouldn't contradict your beliefs in science. Science the how, religion the why.
I wouldn't agree with the explaination of theories though, I would view that more of them are counted as theories because some scientists interpret the information available in different ways, or that there isn't all the information. The big bang was believed to be a "certain" theory, but is becoming a little less accepted as total fact. |
it is a valid question. The same reason a soldier will get up at the same time everyday, even if he's on military leave. You cannot just simply forget something that has been drilled into you for years.
I consider myself a scientific Roman catholic. I do believe some of it, but I like to test it myself to make sure the facts hold up.
And last I checked most scientists had agreed with a version of "Big Bang" but were calling it something else. The fact that all the stars are moving in a diretion away from a centerpoint is substancial proof to the claim anyway. |
Sorry, I should have made that more clear, the main believe is that there was the Big Bang but there is a slowerly growing minority who don't agree. I personally can accept the Big Bang and creationism together, as it doesn't disprove God created the Big Bang.
Thanks for answering the question,
And it was to Link RM.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat May 07, 2005 6:07 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | Sorry, I should have made that more clear, the main believe is that there was the Big Bang but there is a slowerly growing minority who don't agree. I personally can accept the Big Bang and creationism together, as it doesn't disprove God created the Big Bang.
Thanks for answering the question,
And it was to Link RM. |
I agree that any religious person can believe in the Big Bang. I believe in it, but I also believe that after that, God designed the Universe and guided it through its creation. You know, it's come to my attention that Intelligent Design is somewhat like Newton's Deism. A Deist is what Thomas Jefferson was, as well. It's the belief that the Universe is like a clock, and God is the clockmaker. And since then, God has hardly been involved in anything. But the clockmaker part, however, is like Intelligent Design.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat May 07, 2005 8:30 pm |
|
So, who here believes in these different ideas:
Creationism
The Big Bang Theory/Evolution
The Big Bang Theory/Intelligent Design
The Big Bang Theory/Intelligent Design/Evolution
Something other than Creationism and the Big Bang Theory
I think I may believe in the fourth one, however I may yet be considering that the Big Bang theory is not probable. What say you? And why?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sat May 07, 2005 8:42 pm |
|
I'd like to see an alternative to the Big Bang theory--other than Creationism. Creationism is more philosophical and theological than a valid scientific interpretation of how the universe was created.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sat May 07, 2005 9:07 pm |
|
"Evolution" was originally conceived to explain how the differences in related species came about. It was "hijacked" as an explanation for how life began.
True evolution (the multi-generational alteration of physical characteristics in response to environmental changes via natual selection) was demonstrated during a drought in the Galapagos Islands. In that sense, "evolution" is a fact, not a theory. In the sense of explaining how life developed, "evolution" is still very much a theory (and IMHO, a poor one).
And for those who say "Why not teach both?": "evolution" as an explanation for the origin of life (correct or not) is a scientific concept. "Creation" is a religious concept. One belongs in Biology, the other belongs in Theology.
Also, which of the hundreds of versions of "creation" do you suggest be taught?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat May 07, 2005 9:10 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | "Evolution" was originally conceived to explain how the differences in related species came about. It was "hijacked" as an explanation for how life began.
True evolution (the multi-generational alteration of physical characteristics in response to environmental changes via natual selection) was demonstrated during a drought in the Galapagos Islands. In that sense, "evolution" is a fact, not a theory. In the sense of explaining how life developed, "evolution" is still very much a theory (and IMHO, a poor one).
And for those who say "Why not teach both?": "evolution" as an explanation for the origin of life (correct or not) is a scientific concept. "Creation" is a religious concept. One belongs in Biology, the other belongs in Theology.
Also, which of the hundreds of versions of "creation" do you suggest be taught? |
"Evolution" and Intelligent Design.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sat May 07, 2005 9:14 pm |
|
How do you define "intelligent design"?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat May 07, 2005 9:23 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | How do you define "intelligent design"? |
It's not religious, actually. But it's an alternate idea. Look throughout this topic, and you'll find explanations, key being HH's differentiation between Design and Creationism. Start from the beginning.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Sun May 08, 2005 2:19 am |
|
A better view of Both arguments.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design wrote: |
Summary of arguments made by supporters of Intelligent Design
Arguments for intelligent design can be broadly split into four categories:
* Assertions that the theories of naturalistic abiogenesis and macroevolution cannot fully account for the observed "irreducible complexity" and variety of organic life.
* Arguments in support of a "design inference": just as it is reasonable to infer that an "irreducibly complex", functional, and interdependent machine was deliberately designed�a wristwatch, for example, implies a watchmaker�so, it is argued, it is reasonable to infer that far more complex "biological machines" that show similar characteristics were also designed.
* Probability-based arguments that consider cosmological constants and other features of our universe that are "just right" for life, which conclude that a life-supporting universe is so exceedingly improbable that it cannot legitimately be explained by luck, and must instead be explained as a product of deliberate design. (See Fine-tuned universe)
* Arguments against philosophical naturalism, the assumption in science (and in intellectual life more generally) that any meaningful explanation describes (and is based upon) an empirically accessible material reality. Materialism of this sort rules out explanations that depend on factors located outside of observable nature, including most concepts of an active creator God. ID proponents argue that a priori exclusion of supernatural possibilities amounts to an ideological prejudice that obstructs the genuine search for truth.
* That support for evolution by the scientific community is exaggerated and outdated, therefore mandates an (education and scientific) environment that is proportionally more critical of evolution. |
While they do make good points it continually pushes Philosophy, Theology and Psuedo-Science. Not a good combination while trying to push it on Science.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design wrote: |
Summary of arguments made by critics of Intelligent Design
Principal criticisms of intelligent design (from agencies like the National Center for Science Education [1] (http://www.natcenscied.org/) ) include:
* Claims that ID is simply not science. Unlike actual scientific theories, ID lacks a theoretical basis from which testable hypotheses can be derived, does not offer an explanatory framework for what it purports to be explaining (i.e. the origin of species and their properties over the course of Earth history), and has no research program. Critics contend that ID consists almost exclusively of a critique against evolution, and that such a critique by itself does not qualify as a scientific theory.
* Claims that specific criticisms of biological evolution offered by ID advocates are flawed and misleading. Opponents maintain that ID arguments, with few exceptions, are derived from earlier creationist arguments that have long since been refuted. ID proponents are said to rarely acknowledge or address the body of science that contradicts their claims.
* Arguments against the sufficiency of natural causes, also known as "God of the gaps" arguments, are historically prone to failure. The history of science shows that gaps in our knowledge are continuously filled in. ID skeptics hold that it is unwarranted to assume that what evolution cannot currently explain must automatically make ID the preferred explanation.
* The ID movement is accused of having a socio-political agenda that takes precedence over any scientific issues that may be at stake. The goals and tactics of the ID movement are seen as being essentially the same as the earlier creationist movement. Critics contend that ID is simply repackaged creationism intended to side-step prior court rulings and to avoid contentious issues (such as the age of the Earth) that have long divided religious evolution opponents.
* That ID is an unnecessary assumption, and that Occam's Razor sides with evolution. |
For those who dont know what Occum's Razor is, Occum's Razor states that basically the simplest solution is usually the correct one.
Again, good points made. Shows a strong argument based on facts years in the making.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design wrote: |
Summary of other points of view
ID supporters view "Darwinism" as a world view that extends far beyond science into the realms of philosophy, religion, ethics, and even politics [1] (http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/opinion/10662665.htm). Hence, for ID proponents, the issue of Intelligent Design goes far beyond the scientific viability of ID arguments, and debates about Intelligent Design often shift quickly from a scientific to a philosophical context.
These broader debates become notable with regard to the public involvement of prominent theists and atheists, and the necessity of walking the line between unconstitutionally supporting religion by allowing the teaching of ID and unconstitutionally suppressing religion by teaching evolution as scientifically established fact. Public opinion polls as of January 2005 show that the majority of Americans believe that "God created humans in their current form" [2] (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usevol094114483jan14,0,6292738.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines).
Within this context, not all critics of Intelligent Design regard it as a clear and present danger, for example William Saletan of Slate agrees that Intelligent Design is neo-creationism, and that it is "soft headed", but disputes the contention that it is any more than a last gasp of "educational relativism". [3] (http://slate.msn.com/id/2062009/). And it is far from universally true that religiously conservative individuals are supporters of "Intelligent Design", for example in 1996 John Paul II stated that recent research had led the Catholic Church "toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis" and that it was not necessarily inconsistent with Catholic dogma. Nor are all supporters of evolution in the public realm willing to make the line against teaching Creationism in schools one that they are willing to defend with political capital: Albert Gore, while Vice President of the United States, stated that he did not oppose local school districts using federal funds to teach Creationism. |
This basicaly state what we've been saying here.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sun May 08, 2005 8:27 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | So, who here believes in these different ideas:
Creationism
The Big Bang Theory/Evolution
The Big Bang Theory/Intelligent Design
The Big Bang Theory/Intelligent Design/Evolution
Something other than Creationism and the Big Bang Theory
I think I may believe in the fourth one, however I may yet be considering that the Big Bang theory is not probable. What say you? And why? |
Creationism and the Big Bang was used to create the universe, In the bible it said God created the universe, but it didn't say what way, so it could have been a big bang.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 08, 2005 8:30 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | So, who here believes in these different ideas:
Creationism
The Big Bang Theory/Evolution
The Big Bang Theory/Intelligent Design
The Big Bang Theory/Intelligent Design/Evolution
Something other than Creationism and the Big Bang Theory
I think I may believe in the fourth one, however I may yet be considering that the Big Bang theory is not probable. What say you? And why? |
Creationism and the Big Bang was used to create the universe, In the bible it said God created the universe, but it didn't say what way, so it could have been a big bang. |
There's an extensive 7-day deal there. I don't believe in the 7-day deal.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sun May 08, 2005 8:32 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | There's an extensive 7-day deal there. I don't believe in the 7-day deal. |
Technically it only took 6-days. God used the seventh day to inflate his hours so he would get paid more. 
I once read an essay that attempted to use the theory of Relativity to explain the discrepancies between the Biblical Genesis and the Big Bang timeframes by saying that it would appear as 6/7 days to God whereas it would be billions of years from our perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
