A calm debate

[Acriku]

This is to debate an issue so common in these threads. Well now we can put it all in here so the other topics are saved (hallelujah brother).

This is in response to sneezer's post in The Occult (page 2).

Sneezer have you ever heard of the separation of church and state? Have you heard of PUBLIC schools following this law? If some want to pray, they go to their private schools, where everybody prays. Heck I am in a public school and before school they have a prayer gathering by the flag pole. And you can pray silently, in your head, no one is stopping you. You can pray all you want in the lunch rooms, it isn't illegal, where did you hear that? And if the christian schools charged a dollar, it would still be largely more than the amount of public schools cost, nothing ;)

Evolution is a fact! It is accepted among almost all scientists! Almost all biologists! It is a fact, and has been proven! But what is a theory, is how it occurs, whether it be through darwinistic evolution or something else. So yes, like they teach that water is composed of H20, they should, and thank GOD they do (!), teach evolution as a fact. Evolution is a science, religion is not. So what is the problem with teaching it in a SCIENCE class?

Also, anyone who believes in microevolution but no macroevolution is kidding themselves. Do you know why biologists never make a distinction between the two, and don't even say macro or micro? Because macroevolution is just microevolution (which has been proven numerously) over a long period of time! Surely enough changes in the gene pool make the species variant enough to be proclaimed a new species. No a dog can't turn into a cat, and no a pencil can't turn into a pen. That isn't a good argument, so don't try to use it ;)

Phew sorry for this, I just had to get it out of my system (ah finally did it ex lol).

Yeah, its been proven. heres some past attempts to prove it. and note that some of it is being tought in schools today.

http://www.chick.com/catalog/posters/lrgposter.asp

Have you heard of protons?

Protons are postively charged. it is a law that all postives and negtives attract. but the same thing repels.now if all of them are postively charged then they should all repel. right? then what is the answer here? <gives a chance for a response>

Maybe you haven't heard of debates. *is not suprised* but it has been disproven. but unforenuntly non of them are free. :( :'( but i know where you can get a discount ;D 8)

Pray in your head? Aw come'on. that goes agenst freedom of speech and you know it. thats discremenation. and notice i said Some schooles. and the sources veryed.

Sneezer have you ever heard of the separation of church and state?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That has come to mean seperation of church and state, personally I don't know if that was the original intention. Note just because I mention this doesn't mean I agree with having religion as an integral part of school.

Thanks for the exact quote Gob. :) i have heard some good arguements to why there shouldn't be seperation of church and state. but unforurenuntly its been a long time. :-

but as long as my kids don't have a bible shoved in their faces when they are very impressionable, I'm good.

Thats your choice. but i hope you don't shove an Evolution Science book while "there young and very impressable" either.

Really. i don't see the point of this arugment. "remembers what Acriku said* "This debate means little to me"

there is some more i could include/change in this post. but i gotta go. :(

Sucks you gotta go, but atleast you got this when you come back! :D

I don't have time to respond to that image (great artwork though, even though the content is bs ;)), basically it's all crock. Just take my word for it for now. Haven't we talked about Chick before?

If all protons are positively charged? Last time I checked they were...

Praying in your head was a suggestion, and I said right after that, that it is not illegal to pray before eating out loud, although you can get in trouble for disrupting the lunchroom if it causes such.

As have I heard the contrary to the law, that is why it is still a debated issue. Duh.

LOL I shouldn't shove scientific fact down children's throats? First of all, if science is wrong then it corrects itself thusly, therefore science cannot be shoved down someone's throat (figuratively speaking), as a bible can be. :P

Just ask any biologist if evolution is a fact, and ask if how it occurs is still debated upon. You will get exactly what I just said.

Well this was fun, we should do this more often.

[emprworm]

"great artwork though, even though the content is bs "

What content is BS? Those "missing links" as they were heralded by evolutionists are all scientifically debunked. I'd like to know which one of them you still hold too. Your opinions about Jack Chick are irrelevant to the veracity of the information presented.

[Acriku]

Well any information about paleontology from a creationist should be extremely criticized until proven as they tried to use false arguments including paleontology into it before, and they actually have something to uphold and any information they will use to uphold it whether it be misquoted, false, misunderstood, or edited. IMO. Sometimes it isn't their fault and I don't blame them, many lies and falsities are widespread. Also he should enlarge the letters just a tad, as it's hard to read towards the end. ;)

[emprworm]

Well any information about paleontology from a creationist should be extremely criticized until proven as they tried to use false arguments including paleontology into it before

i am amazed that you would even make such a lame argument. Can you say "No True Scottsman" fallacy?

Even rudimentary atheists wouldn't pose such a weak argument. I now direct you to an atheist website which corrects your really lame argument.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_notruescotsman.htm

[Acriku]

Empr I go to that site every day, it's a great site.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is e.g. No christian can commit mass murder. Insert crusades. No true christian can commit mass murder. This is what is apparent in some of our beloved members' arguments, but that's for another time. I don't see what relevance it has here? All I meant was they did it before, so it would make it more likely for a perpetrator of a falsity to do it again. That is why we must criticize every paleontological claim of theirs, and as I forgot to mention this should apply to everybody. I see a picture with very small words on it, with great artwork of stages. I don't see a shred of proof, of any evidence that it is a fact, thus I question it's credibility to stand as an argument.

[emprworm]

lol, acriku. You have it ALL backwards. It is not J Chick making the CLAIM that Piltdown man is a bonafide missing link. He has no burden of proof whatsoever. Before you ramble off your spew, I very very HIGHLY suggest you do some research into "piltdown man" before you embarrass yourself. don't make me do it for you.

Secondly, you are making a grievous irrational and emotionally based argument by saying that no TRUE PALENTOLOGIST would be a creationist.

I might add that the majority of scientific discovery in this world was accomplished by theists. So there is more than ample proof that theists are 100% fully capable of making vast contributions to science and biology.

So you can take your emotionally driven "no true palentologist" BS and toss it with the rest of the garbage.

Lets take just one of those "missing links" on J Chick's chart: Piltdown Man.

If you believe in Piltdown man as a default and think I have the burden of DISPROOF, then you are sorely mistaken.

However, to make you happy, I will do your research for you into Piltdown man, but don't blame me for your embarrasment.

[Acriku]

Ah jeez, you know this is why I said the artist should make the letters bigger, because I couldn't read em. Therefore all the junk you just spewed at me about Piltman was misled because I had no comment on the Piltman and did not even know what the image said about it, although I make out "jaw" in a few stages. Also, I never said no true paleontologist is a creationist, you are totally putting words in my mouth. Note in my last post before this I forgot to mention this goes for everybody else (as there have been hoaxes from some paleontologists). And also it does not take a paleontologist to comment about paleontology, so your whole no true scotsman fallacy theory was misunderstood.

[TMA_1]

so much for calm debate joe. hehe ;)

also you are too gosh darn bias with christians. You are willing to believe that somehow an athiest is not as bias as a christian. Extremely nieve. A christian scientist should be judged just like a deistic or athiestic scientist.

[Acriku]

Isn't that what I said in my last post TMA? And so far I am being calm, dunno bout empr and his flying exclamation points, but they were just misunderstood.

[TMA_1]

hehe. true acriku.

*bold words, italicised words, more !!!! some of these ::) ::) and we have an argument the way most people post.lol

I dont do that though. me and you joe, we too cool. 8) lol

[emprworm]

well, acriku, I will give you a word of caution.

Saying things like:

"Well any information about paleontology from a creationist should be extremely criticized..."

is simply not condusive to a 'calm' response. You slammed that entire chart by jack Chick. I asked you to please demonstrate which one of those "missing links" is credible. My original request was valid, since all of them have been scientifically debunked, to which you replied with the no true scottsman fallacy I quoted above.

I just do not let people in these forums get away with attempts to 'sneak in' their little slams against Christians under the pretense of being 'calm' or whatever. You don't hear me saying things like "Any claim of an atheist must be highly criticized...." Have I ever said that? If I did, I would rapidly apologize because such a statement wo7uld not only be patently rediculous but offensive to other atheists- especially ones who have made contributions to science and technology- like many Christians have.

[Acriku]

Actually I think any claim should be criticized, and I might not be using the right word but I mean examined and researched to be accepted as proof. Damn metal music gets the best of me, I can't think of that one word. Oh well it might be criticized.

[emprworm]

"Actually I think any claim should be criticized" well if that was your original intent, I will go along with it.

I might add that J. Chicks chart is valid. those so-called missing links all represent massive embarrasments to the evolutionary dogma. they were all shoved down childrens throats in school....and they were all empirically debunked as false.

shows you the integrity the evolutionary community has as being 'scientific'. It is more about dogma than science. I am very glad that in many states, evolution is being now taught as THEORY along side with Intelligent Design. This is what all children should be taught. Both sides, and let them make up their own minds.

[TMA_1]

"well, acriku, I will give you a word of caution."

geesh man cool down.

GENERAL DIRECTIONS FOR CHILLING OUT

*insert hand up ass and pull out pole*

[Acriku]

Empr, I just checked the dictionary and I meant to say critique. So that should clear things up.

OK back to business. Did you by any chance ask any biologist, because that would really speed things up here ;) Jk, but it would be interesting to get a real live biologist! (giggles with excitement)

Empr, you know science has been wrong in the past, and now, and in the future, but it accepts that and when another theory comes along that has more proof or whatever it places that as the head honcho. The evolution theory is a scientific theory, a theory that is accepted majoritically (yeesh is that a word) among the scientific community, it is basically a fact that isn't a law. Like the gravity theory before it became a law. The only question dealing with evolution is how it occurs. This is where other theories are thrown around. It has been proven that changes in the gene pool can live on in the offspring of the host guy...thing. Ok, where was I, ah yes the shoving down the throats ordeal. Science can never be shoved down the throat of a child, because it accepts that it can be wrong, and is wrong sometimes, and corrects itself when it is wrong, therefore it does not claim absolution therefore cannot be shoved, IMO. We are taught there are 3 types of matter, then we are taught there are 4, then 5, and so on because science changes.

Both sides? Ok, which god do you want to profess as a "possibility" to the children? Which religion? You can't do them all, so which ones get the accomplishment of being alongside evolution to be taught? Do tell.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_science.htm

Go there to see whether or not evolution is science. Also...

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_what.htm

To learn all about evolution! Isn't it great kids!

[emprworm]

"The evolution theory is a scientific theory, a theory that is accepted majoritically (yeesh is that a word) among the scientific community, it is basically a fact that isn't a law"

Yes, it is a scientific theory. Intelligent Design is a scientific theory too. And just like the theory of evolution, the theory of intelligent design should also be taught in schools as a theory to allow children the freedom to decide for themselves.

[Acriku]

How is the intelligent design theory a scientific theory? Please explain.

I have done some research and have found a very interesting article on intelligent design theory, perhaps you should read it.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html

I learned a lot about it, and what is wrong with it. But I will look at other articles to see if the information is most likely correct or not.

Here's an excerpt:

Aristotle treats nature itself as a craftsman, but clearly devoid of forethought and intelligence. A tiger develops into a tiger because it is in its nature to do so, and this nature is due to some physical essence given to it by its father (we would call it DNA) which starts the process out. Aristotle makes clear this rejection of god as a final cause (Cohen 2000) when he says that causes are not external to the organism (such as a designer would be) but internal to it (as modern developmental biology clearly shows). In other words, the final cause of a living being is not a plan, intention, or purpose, but simply intrinsic in the developmental changes of that organism. Which means that Aristotle identified final causes with formal causes as far as living organisms are concerned. He rejected chance and randomness (as do modern biologists) but did not invoke an intelligent designer in its place, contra Dembski. We had to wait until Darwin for a further advance on Aristotle's conception of the final cause of living organisms and for modern molecular biology to achieve an understanding of their formal cause.

[sneezer3]

shows you the integrity the evolutionary community has as being 'scientific'. It is more about dogma than science. I am very glad that in many states, evolution is being now taught as THEORY along side with Intelligent Design. This is what all children should be taught. Both sides, and let them make up their own mind.

You know. I never thought of that. I would tottly agree with you here. :)

Sucks you gotta go, but atleast you got this when you come back! :D

I don't have time to respond to that image (great artwork though, even though the content is bs ;)), basically it's all crock. Just take my word for it for now. Haven't we talked about Chick before?

If all protons are positively charged? Last time I checked they were...

Praying in your head was a suggestion, and I said right after that, that it is not illegal to pray before eating out loud, although you can get in trouble for disrupting the lunchroom if it causes such.

As have I heard the contrary to the law, that is why it is still a debated issue. Duh.

LOL I shouldn't shove scientific fact down children's throats? First of all, if science is wrong then it corrects itself thusly, therefore science cannot be shoved down someone's throat (figuratively speaking), as a bible can be. :P

Actully. i think it was Dr. Kent Hovind that made that poster. but J.T.C that did the artwork. but i'm not sure. as for it being to large. i only gave you the large version of the link. and the one that is currently in print you can see weller then you can see my post right now. :)

here ya go.

http://www.chick.com/catalog/posters/poster.asp

Now about protons.

Protons are postively charged yes? the law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACHOTHER! Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged they should repel each other and scatter into space.

Colossians 1:17

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.<are held togather>

Wow. coult this actully mean he is holding togather your very protons that make you up?

[SurlyPIG]

Evolution and natural selection are completely accepted by the scientific community. Darwin's theory is almost to the point where it'll be called Darwin's Law. There is no reputable theory competing with natural selection.

The only thing "proven" about intelligent design is that, like modern religion, it is unprovable. And in my logical opinion, teaching unprovable ideas in the same light as provable ideas is SSSOOOO utterly stupid. There's tonnes upon tonnes of things out there you can't be proven or disproven. Does that mean we should believe in them? No way. The only reason this is even discussed is because modern society is foolishly trying to fit religion into life.

[Acriku]

Thanks ace, couldn't have said it better myself (even though I tried hehe)

Ok thanks for clearing up who did what sneezer. And I said the letters were too small, not the image being too large. ;)

From that quote are you actually telling me, again from that quote, that it means God holds the protons together? C'mon man, that's farstretched,, just like Nostradamus' predictions, too vague and can mean a million things.

I think it's so stupid that there is a poster for sale that (and teens love it, ooo joy) somehow shows the foolishness of evolution, when all it does is prove that human people can be fallible and make mistakes, some intentional some not. It shows nothing else. Notta.

About the protons repelling each other. Dude have you had 6th grade science? Or any middle school at all? I learned it in 6th grade, that physicists call the force that brings them together "the strong force". Dun dun dun dadada. There's your answer. And believe me that isn't it, there is all this electromagnetic waves, pions, kaeons, quarks, it's a pretty big subject and pretty interesting you should check it out.

[sneezer3]

Thanks ace, couldn't have said it better myself (even though I tried hehe)

Ok thanks for clearing up who did what sneezer. And I said the letters were too small, not the image being too large. ;)

From that quote are you actually telling me, again from that quote, that it means God holds the protons together? C'mon man, that's farstretched,, just like Nostradamus' predictions, too vague and can mean a million things.

I think it's so stupid that there is a poster for sale that (and teens love it, ooo joy) somehow shows the foolishness of evolution, when all it does is prove that human people can be fallible and make mistakes, some intentional some not. It shows nothing else. Notta.

Are you aware that is being tought in schools as "fact"? those fallable mistakes sure are paying off.

And that is not vague. it clearly says all things consist. i don't look for other meanings or interpertations of it. i take it for what it says.

[Acriku]

Yes a lot of things are taught as fact, I don't think little children (impressionable years) will understand "theory" and "law". Even so, show me a biology book or history book that says that Piltman or whoever is the missing link. You won't find one, why? Because the scientific community has acknowledged that it isn't the missing link and it was false, thus not true, thus corrected. This is simply not done with religion, and it is hurting its credibility everyday with it as science progresses. And tell me what the use of religion is by the way? Sure they got good stuff going on now, but what does it bring to the table that other efforts cannot? Humanism can replace religion and we would will have the love and hate that we have today, so religion is obsolete, and even so there will be a lot less problems. Religions divide eachother, they cannot become equal because they are different systems of belief, as divided more and more I would not be surprised if there was a religious war in the near future. That should throw enough coal into the fire to keep it burning.

[emprworm]

How is the intelligent design theory a scientific theory? Please explain.

I have done some research and have found a very interesting article on intelligent design theory, perhaps you should read it.

perhaps because several state supreme courts, through the testimony and evidence of scores of credible scientists have the necessary rational objectivity to rule without bias, unlike some very one-sided atheists in this forum. These courts have already ruled in favor of teaching both theories. SO obviously there must be some merit to the myriad of evidence presented by PhD scientists on the side of Intelligent Design. Of course, what degree did you have, Acriku to claim that all of their research is just unscientific poppycock? Just wondering.

The only thing "proven" about intelligent design is that, like modern religion, it is unprovable

and as for Ace's comments, well, its pretty obvious what an anti-religious person is going to think about the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Of course, I can say the same thing Ace said about evolution:

The only thing "proven" about evolution is that, like modern atheistic Guth-ism, it is unprovable

However I am glad that atheists do not dictate what is taught in schools, and that rational objective people are mature enough to teach children both sides, and instead of shoving unproven atheist dogma down their throat, these children can make up their own minds about what to believe.

ID is as scientific as evolution. Period. For every single...and I mean every single argument you have for evolution...there is a rational counter argument for Intelligent Design. There is just simply no argument for evolution that you can present that cannot be scientifically countered by ID. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory to biased, one sided atheists...but we already knew that.

[Acriku]

Did you even go to my link empr? I checked out other resources and they said the same thing, and I'll try to link to them as well when I find them again. You know, it is very unscientific. You can't test it empirically, you can't do anything with ID so how the hell can it be scientific. Once again, please explain how it is scientific, perhaps I need some enlightening empr. Natural selection (darwin) wipes out the need of a designer, and puts it on nature's shoulders and it certainly isn't intelligent. Aristotle knows this as well, as he has written this, also shown in the article.

[Edric O]

Oh my, what a calm debate this is... ::)

You know, we have been having this argument so many times that even I'm starting to get bored of it. How many times must I remind you: a Christianity vs. Evolution argument makes about as much sense as Buddhism vs. Quantum Physics, or Islam vs. Gravity.

Not all Christians are creationists, and not all evolutionists are atheist.

This is basically a creationism vs. evolution debate, and as the Christian evolutionist that I am, I'll stay out of it. :) (unless it goes off-topic into something more interesting, of course ;) )

And btw, here's a topic in another forum (Relic boards) which shows that Christianity and evolution can get along just fine:

(careful, it's a long one - you should check out the last few pages)