paultrr Posted May 18, 2005 Report Share Posted May 18, 2005 A very funny analogy about this.... http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sfile=td050514&vts=51820050808 Funny, but true in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 In Kansas they are attempting to get evolution down graded and have teachers talk about "alternate theories". One odd thing in this hearing was that the pro-evolutionist decided to not put scientists on the stand in defense of evolution. I am torn on this move because it at first does not seem to be a wise move, yet I can understand the idea that they did not want to put the theory of evolution on trial. What you think?? I live in Kansas so I herd all about the evolutionists wanting to boycott the debates...they didn't want to stand up to them because they knew that they wouldn't be able to withstand against the Inteligent design group...and they didn't want to make their theory look bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kukucan Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 They knew it was pointless to try to convince a biased school board of religious revolutionaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eMTee Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 creationists are biased toward evolution, evolutionists are biased toward creation...we have a two fold on this subject. If everyone was a millionair..who then would be considered rich? it was the creationists trying to convince the schoolboard to teach an alternative to evolution, not the other way around...it was the creationist's move to have the debate...not the evolutionists decision. The schoolboard is pro evolution. Creation does not harm science, many say that if creation it tought in the schools, then science research and all the ones who study it will be harmed. This is so wrong. I hear alot about people forcing their religion upon others..and this is a subject in the schools for the liberals and their opinion about creathin. Evolution is a religion..atheism is a religion...these are being forced as well as the "forcing" creationism on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kukucan Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 The schoolboard is pro evolution.That's not how it appears from what I read in the Kansas City Star. Science is a search for answers. Creationists already have the answers and are looking for ways to support them. Nothing they ever find will change the answers which were predetermined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kukucan Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 I hear alot about people forcing their religion upon others..and this is a subject in the schools for the liberals and their opinion about creathin. Evolution is a religion..atheism is a religion...these are being forced as well as the "forcing" creationism on others.Evolution is NOT a system of belief, but a scientific theory which has no credible alternative. Neither is atheism a religion, but actually a lack of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 Evolution is NOT a system of belief, but a scientific theory which has no credible alternative. Neither is atheism a religion, but actually a lack of.Now this a bit of a stretch. Most evolutionsists are Naturalists, which is certainly a belief systems. And if anyone holds to the basket of theses we group into evolution becasue of a lack of alternatives, that is a belief system as well. Lack of alternatives does not a theory make. And atheism is CERTAINLY a belief system. Agnosticism may not be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 And atheism is CERTAINLY a belief system.I can't say that I agree with that. Saying that I don't believe in God is not saying I believe there is no God. I personally don't accept that there is or ever has been any evidence of any God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 I can't say that I agree with that. Saying that I don't believe in God is not saying I believe there is no God. I personally don't accept that there is or ever has been any evidence of any God.I thik we talked about this before once, C1ay. I have always thought you were internally consistent, based on a large number of posts I have read from you. If you think there is no evidence for God, that does not make you an atheist. An atheist concludes there is no god, based on the evidence. That is different than acting as if there is none, based on lack of evidence. I don't mean to get in to semantics here, but your position (as i understand it) is not a belief system and it closer to the textbook definition of agnosticism. You do seem to lean toward God's non-existence, but you remain open to any data, or argumentative framework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 I thik we talked about this before once, C1ay. I have always thought you were internally consistent, based on a large number of posts I have read from you. If you think there is no evidence for God, that does not make you an atheist. An atheist concludes there is no god, based on the evidence. That is different than acting as if there is none, based on lack of evidence. I don't mean to get in to semantics here, but your position (as i understand it) is not a belief system and it closer to the textbook definition of agnosticism. You do seem to lean toward God's non-existence, but you remain open to any data, or argumentative framework.I disbelieve in any God, a traditional trait of atheists and I don't believe anyone can prove or disprove the existance of any God, the traditional trait of agnostics. I also don't believe in the need to disprove something that no one has shown any logical proof of but I don't particularly know what belief or disbelief that would belong to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kukucan Posted May 22, 2005 Report Share Posted May 22, 2005 Speaking of semantics:Now this a bit of a stretch. Most evolutionsists are Naturalists, which is certainly a belief systems. And if anyone holds to the basket of theses we group into evolution becasue of a lack of alternatives, that is a belief system as well. Lack of alternatives does not a theory make.Evolution is NOT a system of belief, but a scientific theory which has no credible alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 I disbelieve in any God, a traditional trait of atheists and I don't believe anyone can prove or disprove the existance of any God, the traditional trait of agnostics. I also don't believe in the need to disprove something that no one has shown any logical proof of but I don't particularly know what belief or disbelief that would belong to.I think we might consider you agnatheostic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 23, 2005 Report Share Posted May 23, 2005 Speaking of semantics:Sorry, K- I could not pick up your point in this post (113). Other than you caught me fat-fingering "because" again. By far my most common typo. Could you clarify your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirwany Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Since I am not particularly articulate, I recommend a look at the AAAS letter that politely declines the Kansas invitation. It is a model of succinct prose and one of the most elegantly worded declarations of the larger position of the scientific community. The letter can be viewed at http://www.aaas.org Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirwany Posted May 28, 2005 Report Share Posted May 28, 2005 Oh and by the by, I think Biochemist is entirely correct. "Agnostic" is a more valid position. Since empirical rules cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of God, having no knowledge of God (AGNOSIS) is the more consistent description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts