Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread

[bobtheking]

the new scientific american has a hilariously sarcastic statement about the creationism/evolution debate. i will try to find it on the web somewhere. some quotes:

In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and on eof the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some un-named superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

edit: here is something, it has part of it, but you have to register to download it: http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse....LEID_CHAR=8E45B3E6-2B35-221B-6E9314D45FCAD2B2

another good quote:

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because of a lack of scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the eas ymistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do ohterwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

"I’m talking about people on both sides of the argument."

Please explain... WHAT ARGUMENT?

The Evolution Vs Creationism one?

Science Versus Religion?

Was this truly supposed to be a proper debate? What was the aim of this supposed debate? It wasn't stated in your first post. Everyone here at NC knows that this subject has been done to death. Coming into this thread I don't believe you were ever prepared to take a fundamentalist faith based perspective seriously. Ever. The result of this thread was foretold long before it was even created.

If someone were to provide factual evidence that gives merit to a contrary evolutionary theory (not a stated fact based on scripture) do you think it would come from one of the highly religous people here? Even if it did, would it be a religous perspective or a rational, logic based argument?

You can debunk creationism on logical grounds for ever and ever, BUT THE RELIGIOUS TYPES HERE WONT CHANGE THEIR MINDS, RATIONAL ARGUMENTS PROBABLY DIDN'T GET THEM TO WHERE THEY ARE NOW. The best people to talk to about the possible shortcomings of the evolution theory are OTHER RATIONALISTS. And by now it's not even a debate! You're just sharing ideas and teaching each other about evolution! You would have to restate some contrary ideas about how exactly evolution worked and how we came to be and go from there.

Science is just a method and Religion is a lot more than a story about how the world and everything came to be. I think the idea that this thread involves a proper argument/debate is bizarre.

You know that green emoticon that I stuck on the thread when I created it? That’s the giveaway. I suspected this would just be another back and forth debate where no one jumped up and completely changed their mind over night. I also knew that we’ve went through this before.

I started the thread because I created a thread about ‘there is no future’ and that started to relegate into a religious debate. I just created this thread to maintain the integrity of my other thread. I really didn’t think it would go to over 40 pages, and I didn’t think the bible folks would post so robustly, but once things got going, I hoped that some good arguments might spark a change in the way some people evaluate their way of thinking. It’s really been a good debate forum so far.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

That is only one type of Christianity (which infuses a few brands, I think). Good deeds are quite important to JWs

Which has been one of my arguments that you’d think if god had a hand in the message of the bible, he wouldn’t have made things so ambiguous that we’d end up with all these different beliefs.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

“As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.”

“That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.”

“In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.”

lol, that’s some good stuff, bob.

 

[oosyxxx]

i think it has been much more informative and level-headed than other, more kamikaze religious debates/flame wars that take place on the net.

 

[Cat Fuzz]

Which has been one of my arguments that you’d think if god had a hand in the message of the bible, he wouldn’t have made things so ambiguous that we’d end up with all these different beliefs.

"All these different beliefs" are a result of satans influence. satan can even influence one of my cats. No lie, whenever my wife sits down to study her Bible, the cat starts bugging the crap out of her.

 

[Stilgar]

Gold.

 

[Nachimir]

Are the other cats invulnerable to demonic influence?

 

[QUALTHWAR]

"All these different beliefs" are a result of satans influence. satan can even influence one of my cats. No lie, whenever my wife sits down to study her Bible, the cat starts bugging the crap out of her.

You know how I have to reply to this one, right? Have you run experiments with other books to see if you get the same result?

 

[Nachimir]

It's fairly typical cat behaviour. I had one the tended to get in the way whenever I was reading.

 

[Stilgar]

It's fairly typical cat behaviour. I had one the tended to get in the way whenever I was reading.

When I'm drawing, my sisters cat will come and sit on the pad like it was the most interesting thing ever.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

A long time ago, we had cats. I walked into our bedroom one day just in time to see one taking a crap right in the middle of the bed. We got rid of the cats.

 

[Cat Fuzz]

You know how I have to reply to this one, right? Have you run experiments with other books to see if you get the same result?

As a matter of fact we have. The cat never bothers her when she reads any other book. Our other cat is too lazy to satans work.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

As a matter of fact we have. The cat never bothers her when she reads any other book. Our other cat is too lazy to satans work.

I'll need to see your data.

 

[Mister_Prophet]

As a matter of fact we have. The cat never bothers her when she reads any other book. Our other cat is too lazy to satans work.

What bothers me is that I can't tell if he's being sarcastic anymore

Btw, cats blow.

 

[Cat Fuzz]

What bothers me is that I can't tell if he's being sarcastic anymore

Btw, cats blow.

Ambiguity rules.

 

[Stilgar]

Rules with the IRON FIST OF THE LORD

Amen brothers!

 

[Evil_Cope]

Ambiguity rules.

Sarcasm makes Baby Jesus cry. Why must you make Baby Jesus cry. Catfuzz, why!?




oh no, Wait, i'm thinking of Zarkazm. Zarkazm makes Baby Jesus cry. Right. Sorry, carry on!

 

[Stilgar]

Babies cry, period.

 

[oosyxxx]

cat ur head games r trippy man!