Evolutionary Debate

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 16:16
VIEWED: 20170
PAGE 9 of 20

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 9:10 AM

"And Rue, evolution didn't do anything to make my computer work, unless of course, you're teaching the evolution of the typewriter to the modernday PC."

Electrons - theories. Same for semi-conductors, orbitals, voltages and all the things that make your computer light up and run. The physics behind computers is no less theory than evolution.

I think what you're having a hard time with is when science is turned towards people - as in evolution. Which is an emotional reaction, as people would prefer to feel they're unique and prefectly free, and not governed by physical factors or happenstance.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 9:45 AM

Just tell me that you're an anti-smoke health Nazi Rue!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

RUE

Friday, February 9, 2007 9:58 AM

I don't care who smokes as long as I don't have to inhale it. Not b/c it's so damaging - both my parents smoked like chimneys and the damage is already done. I just can't abide the smell.

To paraphrase: your freedom to smoke ends at the tip of my nose.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 9, 2007 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't care who smokes as long as I don't have to inhale it. Not b/c it's so damaging - both my parents smoked like chimneys and the damage is already done. I just can't abide the smell.

To paraphrase: your freedom to smoke ends at the tip of my nose.

I really don't have any problem with that reply Rue. The smell is a much better reason to me than hearing that I'm killing you. My brother doesn't smoke yet he fights for smokers rights.

I dont' have a problem with the scene here at work. We have a smoke room and it's well ventilated. Contrary to non-smoker's beliefs, we don't smoke cigarettes to annoy non smokers. I think it's rediculous that many laws are being passed that don't allow somebody to smoke even in a smoke room in a building and even more outrageous that they have to walk out in the middle of the street because other laws say you can't smoke within 15 feet of a building. Especially when it's 10 degrees below like it is here now.

I have a problem with them telling us that we can't smoke in bars and I'm kind of torn on the resturants. I believe that this is just Big Gov coming into peoples businesses and telling them how to run them. Hell...even being a smoker I've entertained ideas of opening up a non-smoking club in downtown Milwaukee. I think I'd make a fortune off of it even while I have to duck outside of my own club to have a cigarette. I feel here that the market should decide. There would be smoking and non smoking clubs. It will be just like segregation of whites and blacks back in the day but everyone will be okay with it because everyone wins. They need to keep the hell out of it. 'aint their business, the way I see it.

And the $5, $6 even $10.00 a pack they're charging now due to taxes is a form of minority oppression.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

YINYANG

Friday, February 9, 2007 2:12 PM

I just have one thing to say for now: the government's trying to make us all athiest science-"worshippers"?

Hahahahahahaha!

Okay, funny time over. But, seriously - most people in the government, as most people in the world, follow some religion. They're the last people who would want to get rid of religion - and, in fact, it tends to make people easier to deal with if they're all united in belief. Theocracies were (are there still any left?) beasts of enormous strength. That would have been the second reason Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church.

On an organized level, religion is mostly about power. On a personal level, I find religion to be a much nicer creature - Christians actually following Christ, and the like.

I'll come back to this when I don't have a malfunctioning mouse and have more time.

Rules and voting: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=22892

SAHARA

Friday, February 9, 2007 2:33 PM

The thing I like about your posts, Jack, is their consistency. Anyone who doesn't think like you and actually has the audacity to disagree with you even after you've so painstakingly and 'rationally' explained to them how wrong they are is a sheep and a government dupe that can't think for themselves.

Sweet.

Science and religion are not two sides of one coin. They are two very different coins. It's not an either or proposition. I would have no problem with my son learning about religion(s) in school. It just doesn't belong in science class.

And I've run into exponentially more religious people trying to convert me to their way of thinking than atheists.

Sahara
Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

KHYRON

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't believe or disbelieve in evolution or God. It's very possible that either or both or neither was the case. I mentioned this in another thread and was asked, "How can you believe that maybe neither took place?" My answer to that is a resounding OPEN MIND. Maybe we DON'T have ANY of the answers. Anything we've heard about evolution is an educated guess at the very best.

You still haven't answered my question. Either the species we see today were made by god, or they evolved from other species. What other option is there? They just decided to exist one day? And don't give me that crap that maybe we don't have any answers, we have plenty of answers, just read a book on this stuff, or spend one minute on Google. Educated guess at best? So the fossil record is an educated guess? DNA analysis is an educated guess? Observed cases of microevolution are educated guesses?

For somebody who claims to have a "resounding open mind", you sure are closed off to any sort of evidence. Even worse, you seem to fully dismiss the need to accept evolution because you think scientists and "so-called enlightened individuals" are arrogant by telling others evolution is real. How is this a sign of an open mind? Dismissing scientific results out of hand because you don't like the proponents of the idea isn't a virtue. In fact, I think you dismiss most of the accepted results, on most topics, simply because you want to prove how much of an "independent thinker" you are by doing that, and by also constantly feeding us your anti-establishment garbage. This isn't a virtue either.

If you have a "resounding open mind", why don't you accept valid evidence when it's presented to you as valid evidence? Why say evolution shouldn't be taught at schools because you think it's not proven? Why say the children of religious parents shouldn't have to learn about evolution?

It's time to live up to your own hype, dude. At the moment you're just a deeply ignorant person telling everyone he's more open-minded than they are, and your routine is getting old.

EDIT: I see Sahara is already thinking along the same lines as I am.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 9, 2007 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
A) It is guaranteed that evolution and science will never be taught to kids in a way where the kids are made to feel pressured that they have to choose one or the other. (God/Religion or Evolution/Science)

Agreed, though I'm fairly sure that the anti-evolution people are worse than the pro-evolution people in this regard.

Quote:
B) God (Allah/Buddah) be taught as a part of Social Studies, or Humanities and be given an equal amount of time devoted as evolution. If there are enough kids from non-christian religions at the school, they should also have time devoted to their religions as well. (We don't need PC laws telling us we need to teach the Koran to Christians and Athiests kids if there aren't any Muslims, and vice versa). The situation at each school will be unique and should be weighed accordingly.

Sort of disagree, number one very few people are forced to take classes that include evolution (I never took biology and never heard the word evolution used in that context in school), and forcing people who take classes that include evolution to take religious classes IMO isn't right. At the same time forcing people who are taking a theology class to take classes in biology to learn about evolution isn't right either.

Number two, Theology classes should include a wide variety of religion, not just because of legal issues (teaching just one religion would be a clear violation of the Constitution), but also because a Theology class should be exactly that, a Theology class, not a Christianity class or an Islam class etc.

Quote:
C) Assholes like Dawkins don't get anymore spotlight. Dawkins is the Jesse Jackson of Evo/God. He exists simply to divide the two, enflame and enrage people and make sensational news stories. He's a big part of the reason why many religious people aren't going to accept evolution in the first place. I don't have a problem with somebody being Athiest. I have a problem with somebody telling everybody else about it and ramming it down their throats

I'll agree with this when I no longer have people insist that I'm not REALLY an atheist, that I don't really MEAN that I don't believe in God, etc. As far as I am concerned he is no worse than the people on the 700 club. Also, he is a scientist who publishes books about evolution, I agree that he should tone down his behavior a bit but his books (Blind Watchmaker, Selfish Gene etc) are highly nformative. I believe that his hard push for atheism hurts the acceptance of his information on evolution, but that's his business and it's his right to voice his opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
I don't think science is creating the showdown. It's the religious folk who say 'my way or the highway.'

This is exactly correct, while recently the situation has changed a little (Dawkins starting his crusade against religion, etc) throughout history Science has existed for the sole purpose of understanding the world, frequently this places it at odds with religion which wants to maintain the status quo (which used to have religion at the forefront of everyones mind). Early evolutionists rarely if ever attempted to use evolution to replace religion, they just observed that evolution happened and disseminated the knowledge. Religious people have been the antagonists throughout the history of evolution, and are usually the ones who insist that evolution is trying to replace religion.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Freedom from God isn't the same thing as freedom of the mind

True, but thinking beyond what you were taught as a child is.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
but wasn't it Rue who not only said that we should all have mandatory vaccinations,

We should, vaccinations keep health care costs down because for a small fee you can avoid a long hospital stay, also the more people who are infected with a disease the more likely that it will mutate into something worse, therefore it's in the best interests o

CITIZEN

Friday, February 9, 2007 8:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Call it whatever reasoning you'd like Cit. Seeing as how I don't buy into any of it myself, I find the entirety of the evolution argument specious, at best.

No, your reasoning WAS specious, whatever I call it is irrelevant. You said that Darwinian natural selection and a biological learning process are equivalent, and even almost managed to pass it off as a reasonable assertion through word play, despite the fact that that assertion is clearly, to anyone who knows what they're talking about, complete and utter shit. The very definition of specious. Adversely disagreeing with evolution is not a grounds to call it specious reasoning, unless you really don't know what the term specious reasoning means.

Quote:
I'm thinking if I ever do choose to have blind faith in either, I'm going to have to throw my chips in with the big guy up there because being wrong on that decision could mean losing a lot, while being wrong about evolution isn't going to effect me one way or the other.

Logical fallacy number one

Quote:
I'm quite impressed that with everything I said in that post, that this is all you had anything to say about. I must be getting better at this debate thing.

And logical fallacy number two.

Because I have not commented on every single bit of flawed reasoning in your post does not mean that you're reasoning is not flawed. Nor, as I suspect you attempt to imply, does the fact that I didn't reply blow by blow to every word in your post mean that anything I have to say on your post is irrelevant. Unless you're also willing to admit that nothing you say should be listened too or has any relevance whatsoever because you haven't replied to every word myself and every other poster here has ever seen fit too cast in to the virtual void.

It's fairly obvious you're not getting better at 'this debate thing' if anything it seems you're getting worse.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

YINYANG

Friday, February 9, 2007 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Yeah, well if I learn math, that information isn't going to change before I die.

It would if somebody could prove that 1+1=3.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
This whole debate would be nullified in my eyes if the following conditions were met. I don't think they're all that unreasonable.

A) It is guaranteed that evolution and science will never be taught to kids in a way where the kids are made to feel pressured that they have to choose one or the other. (God/Religion or Evolution/Science)

B) God (Allah/Buddah) be taught as a part of Social Studies, or Humanities and be given an equal amount of time devoted as evolution. If there are enough kids from non-christian religions at the school, they should also have time devoted to their religions as well. (We don't need PC laws telling us we need to teach the Koran to Christians and Athiests kids if there aren't any Muslims, and vice versa). The situation at each school will be unique and should be weighed accordingly.

In my experience, the ones doing the pressuring are conservative religious types. Besides, just because one is taught that evolution or creation are fact doesn’t mean they’ll accept it – it’s a personal decision that I don’t even think parents should be involved in.

(As an aside - I wish parents didn’t raise their children according to their religious or non-religious beliefs. I don’t mind philosophy, but having babies baptized and dragging four-year-olds to Sunday school bothers me.)

B) Actually, it’s an interesting thing – in my geography class last year, we learned about the major religions of each region (Hinduism and Buddhism for India; Christianity, Islam, and Jewish for other places) and how those beliefs helped to shape the cultures. Granted, it wasn’t a very good lesson, and I wish there was a theism class taught in public schools as well, but it is out there.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And the $5, $6 even $10.00 a pack they're charging now due to taxes is a form of minority oppression.

It's easier than outlawing cigarettes, and everybody involved in the decision makes a profit from it. Why wouldn't they charge so much?

Cigarette smoke is another form of air pollution. The smell gives me a headache, and I don't like breathing it in anymore than engine exhaust; but, banning people from smoking in their own homes? That’s something the neighbors, or the building owners, should take care of.

And, we expose ourselves to things equally as harmful all the time, from the foods we eat to the cars we drive. People seem to be too caught up in extending their life spans to actually live.

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE