Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 4,701-4,750 of 12,463

[[deleted user]]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Hazel wrote: "You may be right, but meh, you know, its something to do when its raining out ;P And banter is good for the... well I would say soul, but I don't believe in souls...

though if it ma..."

Who REALLY read the books? Reading scientific ones does not an intelligent person make and clearly all that READING of yours didn't cure you iof arrogance nor simple human courtesy.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Lila wrote: "April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Hazel wrote: "You may be right, but meh, you know, its something to do when its raining out ;P And banter is good for the... well I would say soul, but I don't belie..."

Stating just the facts, which speak for themselves.

[[deleted user]]

And what would those facts about us, the religious unread, be?

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Lila wrote: "And what would those facts about us, the religious unread, be?"

That you haven't read the academic books on religion.

[Shanna]

cs wrote: "Shanna wrote: "cs wrote: "My father is the Pope"
At best that makes you illegitimate, not qualified in anything."

Don't tell my mum"

One would hope she'd know, or it gets creepier

[[deleted user]]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Stating just the facts, which speak for themselves. "

Speaking of facts, I'm still curious. Which people's profiles, booklists, groups, and comments have you investigated to lead you to judge them lonely and/or obsessed ... posting the same posts to all religious threads for the past three years?

[[deleted user]]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Lila wrote: "And what would those facts about us, the religious unread, be?"

That you haven't read the academic books on religion."

Having read your comments from the one about 'unread' ones up to your last, I am now officially dumber.

[aPriL does feral sometimes]

Shannon wrote: "April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Stating just the facts, which speak for themselves. "

Speaking of facts, I'm still curious. Which people's profiles, booklists, groups, and comments have you inves..."

All you have to do is click and read for yourself. If I say anything now, it will be insulting. If you do the research yourself, it's enlightenment.

[Travis]

Robin wrote: "thought it might help the discussion along. Sorry did not mean to offend."

None taken.
Once you realize there are about ten different topics of conversation going on and we all are as easily distracted as that dog from 'Up', you'll be fine.

Occasionally, we stay on topic and say something really intelligent, but don't get your hopes up.

On the bright side, if you don't like a topic, it's easy to derail us and talk about something else.
If it's Shannon, just mention Sean Bean, if it's cs, just ask him a direct question.

and I will drop any topic if you mention the Avengers movie.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I will drop any topic if you mention the Avengers movie. "

Didn't see it.

Two questions ...

First, is Sean Bean in that movie? ;)

Second, was it good or horrid?

[Travis]

It was brilliant!
Greatest comic book movie since the first Christopher Reeve Superman.

No, Sean Bean is not in it, but the guy that plays Thor is annoyingly good looking and full of boyish charm. Which is how I got my wife to come see it with me.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "the guy that plays Thor is annoyingly good looking and full of boyish charm. Which is how I got my wife to come see it with me. "

Imagine if Butler had also been in it?! ;)

Now, regarding the guy who plays Thor, wasn't he Kirk's father in the newest Star Trek movie ... the one who "went down with his ship" to save everyone?

Sigh .... While his acting skills are fine ... ;) ..., I prefer the seasoned air of ... can you guess?

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "the guy that plays Thor is annoyingly good looking and full of boyish charm. Which is how I got my wife to come see it with me. "

Imagine if Butler had also been in it?! ;)

Now, r..."

Yes, Chris Helmsworth was in that sham of a Star trek movie, for about ten minutes.
He, like Sean Bean, got killed off.

He is perfect casting as Thor.

Shannon, you are starting to worry me.
It's not healthy to only have one celeberty on your 'mad crush, will probably not leave my spouse for, but I won't know for sure till their car breaks down in front of my house' list.

You need a back up obsession or at least be practical...you've got a blonde, you now need a brunette and red head...or is that just a guy thing...?

Might have shared a bit too much on that last bit.

[Robin]

I loved the Avenger series with Patrick MacNee and Diana Rigg that is the only one I sat through. I just want to talk or just discuss what the topic was which was which would you rather live in a world with religion or science, which I have answered but in the midst of everyone else's tangents or rants. I would like to see no one getting hurt feelings, but hey that's just me. I am new to this discussion thread and can't stand reading reams of someone going "off" on things that may be relevant to that particular person, but not to others. Be reasonable.

[Shanna]

My brother said it (The Avengers) was good. But then for him Scarlett Johanessen was in it.

[Gary]

cs wrote: "There you go again lecturer and student scenario once again. You may be able to express your self more succinctly than others because you have studied some subjects in more depth and you may be right more times than you are wrong, but you are still sometimes wrong."

Note that I have admitted when I have been wrong on this thread, and I never claimed to be right all of the time. However, if I am wrong I like people to say why.

You are the one that has repeatedly made blanket statements and attacked anyone questioning them.

I suppose I should be glad of your lecturer/student analogy because a student is meant to question and a lecturer is always someone else's student, and the hope of many a good lecturer is one day their student shall except them.

You however have been trying for a preacher/sheep relationship. You make a statement and expect it to be unquestionably taken at face value through your authority that you pretend is because you know the Master of the Universe's plan better than others.

Good luck with that.

cs wrote: "An extract from ‘The Grand Design’. My something/nothing point.

Spontaneous, meaning ‘developing without apparent external influence’.
Apparent, meaning ‘appearing as such but not necessarily so’.

You miss out the following line. Yet you complain about me taking the Bible out of context...

"Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going." - The Grand Design, Professor Hawking.

cs wrote: "Not necessarily so; and my original point was that there is still room for god in this Grand Design. We are no further on than we were with the big bang theory, and what triggered it if not god."

Room for? Only because it is impossible to completely disprove anything. But Hawkings point was whether god was 'needed' for an explanation and his point was 'no he's not'.

To see the difference replace the word "God" for "magic". There is room in the theory for "magic" to have created the universe. There is room in the theory of gravity that sometimes "magic" might make rocks fall. However there is no need for "magic" in those theories.

cs wrote: "I do understand the M-Theory, up to a point anyway. But I do not agree with Hawking or Mlodinow about their explanation of time. As a laymen I have my own theory about this but I am sure it must be something I have read along the way and retained it, I doubt it is unique."

You see personally I will listen to those more educated and trained in a subject than myself and give them due credence. However, you accuse me of disrespecting Hawking however you go on to not only casually say you believe he's wrong on the strength of a half-remembered idea that you "read somewhere".

Most people have an everyday idea of time that does not include the weird things that happen in gravity fields that Einstein calculated. This is fine for laypersons in everyday life, but without a better idea of it GPS systems would have massive errors because of the time dilation in orbit compared to the surface.

cs wrote: "Yes, you read in the hope the book reveals something groundbreaking and new but, all it is , is a new way of looking the same thing, we just understand a bit better. Like the mars landing in a couple of months, we expect great things, but we will be lucky if it headlines the news."

I can understand how that it looks that way to a layperson. Many transformational ideas and leaps in understanding are not noticed at the time they came about, because the full consequences are barely understood and the concepts hard to grasp by even the experts and therefore incredibly hard to pass on straight away.

The Grand Design is a book attempting to explain some of the latest ideas and thoughts, however M-Theory has been barely scratched at. The Mars landers have already told us incredibly important information, but to explain why it is so important you have to explain the context too.

You realise that the Mars landers may have already discovered extraterrestrial life? The problem is that because we can barely define what terrestrial life is we could have aliens under our microscopes and not be able to confirm it for years. Are we alive? We say yes. Is a bacteria? Umm... Yes. Is a Virus? no it gets hard. Is a Prion alive? It causes diseases, is infectious, however it cannot be cultured in a lab. Is fire alive? It reproduces, spreads, breathes and moves.

cs wrote: "I am making a comparison to the ‘between the lines’ suggestions I have heard here, that if someone is a Christian they should know all about their religious teachings and know nothing about science; oil and water they should not mix."

Well that's not something I would have said. There have been many scientists who were Christians and got on just fine, and there are many atheists who have actually studied religion, not just followed what they thought it was.

cs wrote: "As I have said before one can be a Catholic and a royalist and someone can have a belief in god and science and religion and take the best bits from each to form their own ideas."

Just as you can be a Catholic and a Royalist (in the UK) you may sometimes be put in the position when you have to choose between two conflicting points. (Maybe not as much in the modern secular world.) At some point you may have to choose between what the Queen says and what the Pope says. Which do you choose and why?

In the same manner a religious scientist may discover something which then goes against what his faith seems to tell him. What does he do? Does he place his own ego first and decide to discard his discovery because his faith is obviously always right, or does he accept that what he believed may not be entirely correct and publish his results with humility. In my eyes the former is no longer a scientist. The latter have included Newton, Galileo, Darwin and in a strange way, Einstein. (Einstein did not believe in a personal "god", but he believed in a deterministic orderly universe which he labelled "god" as shorthand on occasion. He therefore hate Quantum physics and went to his grave trying to disprove or get around it, and failed. It now stands as the second pillar of modern physics, with relativity at its side.

This aside, there are scientists that don't believe in god that get on just fine without religion, and some would say even better. (After all if you think you already know the answer, that will bias your research.)

cs wrote: "I can add that I know of some folks with a bag full of degrees and are almost broke, and one or two who did not even pass an eleven plus but are now very rich. In money as well as knowledge. "

Yes. I agree that is the tragedy of our culture. Idiots go on reality TV and are then showered with money by other idiots who have nothing in their own lives but to enjoy others idiocy by proxy. Meanwhile, ill-educated people who have the right friends and family find themselves in well paid positions while hard working smart people spend their lives on low pay, either because they are more interested in their own search for truth than money, or because ultimately the person paying their wages is also reaping the real profits.

What has that got to do with them knowing more about the subject they studied?

[Gary]

Robin wrote: "I am getting kind of irked by all this back and forth between cs and everyone else. I realize that this post is in regards to Angels and Demons, but come on, maybe take the debate somewhere else, s..."

Apologies. I just don't like to give up on people.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Might have shared a bit too much on that last bit. "

Ahahahahahaha ... ;)

[Gary]

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "Now, I'm wondering, simply because this has become like a ninth wonder of the world, how much longer many of you, for example, after being exposed as endless obsessive responders to cs who NEVER uses real debate, will continue to egg the rest of you otherwise super intelligent debaters on....."

In my own defence I have my reasons, which I will briefly illustrate if you have time. :-)

FYI, this is the only GR debate I am currently on. I may look at others. Most importantly there is people on here who are interesting and challenging to talk to.

Responding to cs when he keeps trying to evade debate and instead score points, well.

1. I think that statements (right or wrong) should be challenged. Especially statements that in my opinion are flawed assumptions.

2. I try to treat everyone as if they are honestly trying to debate, some are honestly just less skilled than others and mistake argumentative techniques as being advantageous. I would hope that my patience would help them refine their own skills, even as I refine mine. "Winning" a debate is not the point, as sometimes I am wrong and I would like to be corrected if I am.

3. Each time someone like cs returns to the original point I try to modify the counterpoint. To explain it a different way. The purpose to this is twofold. It may expose the flaw in my own point, or it may be the key that fits the lock in the other persons mind. I have been told many times before "I never thought about (x) that way". I also know myself that sometimes I have to shove an idea into my mind sideways before it 'fits'.

4. The same points above apply to people reading the responses (until they get bored of them). I feel that somebody being evasive and using blatantly argumentative tactics does nothing to harm my case, if anything it just demonstrates the weakness of the counterargument.

All of this is rather handy when I actually debate 'professional' apologists for whatever reason. I know the good arguments they will present, and I know the standard tactics they will use if they feel their argument has failed.

[Travis]

Shanna wrote: "My brother said it (The Avengers) was good. But then for him Scarlett Johanessen was in it."

Yes, Scarlet as the Black Widow is one of the many good things in this movie.
I was quite impressed that even though she's the only girl on the team, they never make her the damsel.

[Gary]

Robin wrote: "I just want to talk or just discuss what the topic was which was which would you rather live in a world with religion or science, which I have answered but in the midst of everyone else's tangents or rants."

Please proceed, I admit I may have missed your response in the writing of my epics (which always are less concise than I want them to be).

I am fairly tolerant and thick skinned so I doubt you will upset me :-)

[Travis]

Robin wrote: "I loved the Avenger series with Patrick MacNee and Diana Rigg that is the only one I sat through. I just want to talk or just discuss what the topic was which was which would you rather live in a ..."

Yes, the Mcnee/Rigg Avengers is classic and that combo is the best of the series.

Feel free to set a good example and stay on topic. Despite this threads ADD, we do discuss it and for the most part have tried to be respectful to both sides.It's just after 90 pages, there is a tendency for people to bring up the same arguments and a tension breaker is required to keep things from getting ugly.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "I was quite impressed that even though she's the only girl on the team, they never make her the damsel. "

That's refreshing! Will have to see it.

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "cs wrote: "There you go again lecturer and student scenario once again. You may be able to express your self more succinctly than others because you have studied some subjects in more depth and you..."

You make a good point, that the people who use 'god' to explain their ideas about science are basically saying 'magic'.

I personally think it's a shame more people don't get excited about stuff like the Mars lander.
They go 'big deal, we found ice', and I want to give them a shake, as they can't seem to take that thought the next step or two.

I'm fascinated by this stuff.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I was quite impressed that even though she's the only girl on the team, they never make her the damsel. "

That's refreshing! Will have to see it."

Hopefully, despite the lack of Sean Bean, you will enjoy it.

[Hazel]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I was quite impressed that even though she's the only girl on the team, they never make her the damsel. "

That's refreshing! Will have to see it."

Hopefully, despite the lack of Sean Bean, you will enjoy it."

theres always Robert Downey Jr...

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "Gary wrote: "You make a good point, that the people who use 'god' to explain their ideas about science are basically saying 'magic'."

Thank you. It was one of my revelations I had when my faith was challenged. I realised that as a Christian you tend to say "God" and define him very narrowly while applying him universally. You will notice many theist arguments are based on the idea of "the God just over the horizon" without ever realising that there are countless things that we could hypothesise is over that horizon, it is just through conceit and a lack of humility that we believe the one we were brought up with is the right one.

Even scientists do it, and then apologists run along after them scraping up quotes to try to appeal to that scientists authority to support their version of god. For example Einstein used "god" as a label, not to describe a "person writ large" but of a concept of the totality and wonder of the universe. That is fine until you start assuming that the universe has rules, wants, needs, loves and jealousies.

Travis wrote: "I personally think it's a shame more people don't get excited about stuff like the Mars lander.
They go 'big deal, we found ice', and I want to give them a shake, as they can't seem to take that thought the next step or two.

I'm fascinated by this stuff. "

Many Christians reject the idea of extraterrestrial life because they believe that this would undermine the concept of Earth being Gods special creation for his special people. Just as they reject evolution because they believe that this undermines the need to believe in a creator-god.

In a way they are right.

However, I am sure that others will continue to believe in god for a long time after. After all it is the people who actually are afraid that scientists are correct. A person with faith shouldn't need to deny evolution, or science, as true faith does not require reason or need to dispute such points. It is actually the ones whose faith is shaky that are the most outspoken on these points.

Over one hundred years after Darwin summarised the points that scientists had been piecing together for decades before, the average layperson has big misunderstandings about what his theory says, and indeed what we mean by the word 'theory'. What chance has Hawking got?

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "
Many Christians reject the idea of extraterrestrial life because they believe that this would undermine the concept of Earth being Gods special creation for his special people. Just as they reject evolution because they believe that this undermines the need to believe in a creator-god."
I actually do not reject this idea. I believe there may be another form of life other than on Earth. I'm not sure that it's possible that it's going to be as/ or more intelligent than the human species, but I believe in the possibility that there's more life out there.
I haven't claimed to know about much about astronomic evidence (not because I'm religious but because I've never been much interested in science altogether nor do I think I have a mind for it, you know, some people tend to be skilled in art, literary fields of study and so forth, and others are skilled in naturally understanding scientific issues. I suck at math and science). Anyway, I do watch some History Channel shows and Discovery shows pertaining to aliens, but I'm not sure that it's been proven there is intelligent extraterrestrial life. I might be wrong, correct me if I am. My world won't fall apart either way. 'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

I also do believe in evolution, just now in species from species evolution. I do believe that every specimen has evolved within itself.

[Hazel]

so, you only believe that evolution occurs within species, but that speciation does not occur? despite the fact that genetic evidence shows that, for example, humans have genes that are present in fish, and that have no use in humans, thus showing that at some point in our evolutionary history the gene must have been useful (otherwise it wouldn't be there), and that means that at some point we shared a common ancestor with fish.

We share 98% of our genetic material with Chimps, does this mean we're the same species? No, it means we shared a common ancestor, and it can be showed we split off about 8-9 million years ago. There is no disputation that evolution occurred, its scientific fact, its also scientific fact that we all share a common ancestor, and that evolution produces seemingly distinct groups of animals and plants etc from a common ancestor. Its even been shown that animals are more closely linked to fungi than to plants. This stuff isn't in dispute, its accepted as scientific fact.

A book that will really help with your understanding of this is Why Evolution Is True.A brilliant book, written to be understood by the layman.

[[deleted user]]

Thanks for the suggestion, Hazel. I'll look into the book. I'd like to definitely know more.

What I mostly would like to know if whether what has occurred millions of years ago is actual scientific fact or scientific speculation.

I'll definitely read the book (in between all the review obligations :().

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "I actually do not reject this idea. I believe there may be another form of life other than on Earth."

First, good. :-)

It is potentially going to be really hard to prove life exists elsewhere as it is really hard to define what life actually is. There is phenomena on earth (desert varnish, and a type of stone blight) which has caused a lot of debate whether they count as life or just complex chemical reactions. Some scientists have also postulated a "Shadow Biosphere" with microorganisms that may yet remain undetected as they are so different to what we expect we don't even notice them.

Imagine therefore how hard it would be to look at another world and say it is definitely lifeless.

Lila wrote: "I also do believe in evolution, just now in species from species evolution. I do believe that every specimen has evolved within itself. "

(I take it "now" was a typo? Not being pedantic, just not wanting to make too many assumptions)

First can I ask why you do not believe in species to species evolution? Your admitting that you do not feel like you have the right mind for science, yet here you are essentially stating that you believe 99% of biologists are wrong and you are right.

I know the standard Creationist position is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis that is somewhat disingenuous. The idea that God created each "according to their kind", is taken literally and used to try to call the authority of science into question yet other things in Genesis are ignored. For example if God is all-knowing and all seeing, then how did Adam and Eve hide from him, however briefly?

Creationists have in general been forced to admit that "micro-evolution" occurs (their term) but not "macro-evolution" (again their term). The problem with this is that evolution in general boils down to three principles.

1. Genetics. Traits are passed on via DNA (and potentially other epi-genetic factors)
2. Variation. Traits are combined in offspring in various ways.
3. Adaption. Those traits may be advantageous, or new traits may even arise that are, while some are not. The next population inherits only the traits of those that survive to breed.

All fine so far, even Creationists admit this happens as it can be demonstrated in experiments within our own lifetime. (E.g. the Lenski experiment)

Creationists claim however that evolution cannot change between "kinds", unfortunately no Creationist has been able to define what a "kind" is. Biologists have a whole selection of definitions of "Kingdoms", "Clades", "Species", "Phylum" which are different nested groupings of animals, but "kind" has no scientific definition.

You see, when variation happens in a population that variation tends to average out across the species (like a recipe in one big mixing bowl) however if you separate the species (by geographic or other means) and continue variation, the mixes will obviously start to change, especially if you introduce different ingredients (i.e. adaptations) to each mix.

When a species is significantly different it becomes difficult for the breed to produce fertile offspring (e.g. mules). If the difference is great enough you cannot get viable offspring as the genetic code is so different.

The problem for creationists is that there is no known mechanism that would stop this from happening. If you isolate two species and let them vary for long enough soon you will get two populations that are so different that they cannot interbreed.

Fossils, antibiotic resistance and new viruses are just the icing on the cake. Speciation is just a matter of applying logic and time to those simple principles that man has applied since the domestication and breeding of beasts.

Young Earth creationists are at least honest. If the Earth was only 6,000 years old then there would not be time for evolution (nor indeed time for Noah to have enough descendants to populate all of Egypt, Egypt's Hebrew slaves and the entire rest of the world).

However, Young Earth creationism is easily countered by looking up. Either light from the furthest thing we can detect has taken 13,000,000,000 years (roughly) to get here, or god has made it look that way just to con people into doubting him and thereby allowing him to punish them (which is in the Bible I suppose).

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "Thanks for the suggestion, Hazel. I'll look into the book. I'd like to definitely know more.

That is fantastic Lila. Finding out for yourself instead of just believing what you are told (even by me :-D) is the best thing you can do.

Lila wrote: "What I mostly would like to know if whether what has occurred millions of years ago is actual scientific fact or scientific speculation."

See my other reply for a brief synopsis of a explanation of evolution that I think creationists tend to miss.

Also, be aware, science by its nature deals in facts and proofs in a manner that laypeople find confusing. The term "theory" doesn't mean its 'just a guess' it means 'this is proved to be the most correct model we have' while always allowing for a better model to come along.

Newton had a theory of gravity, Einstein then came along with his theory. This does not mean that Newton was completely wrong, it means that Einstein was more right. Is Einstein completely right? No, because there is still more that is unexplained, however it still means that he is right on a lot of stuff.

Oh and BtW there is no "controversy to teach" in Evolution (or in Cosmology). Creationists like to present the idea that there is two competing theories as that makes people tend to believe that both must be equally valid and the answer lies somewhere between.

Creationism (or ID) is not a theory as it hasn't been proved, it isn't even a hypothesis as it makes no claim to how species got here (beyond "magic") and instead tries to poke holes in evolution to make it seem like the only alternative is creationism.

[Hazel]

Gary, they think they've found the speciation gene, I'm really looking forward to finding out where the research goes.

[[deleted user]]

Gary wrote: "Lila wrote: "I actually do not reject this idea. I believe there may be another form of life other than on Earth."

First, good. :-)

It is potentially going to be really hard to prove life exists..."
It was a typo. I swear I hate androids and iphones sometimes. But the autocorrect sometimes does make for a few laughs. Have you ever been on the http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/sub... sure. I sometimes really almost piss my pants.

[Hazel]

damn you autocorrect is good for the lulz, as is http://failbook.failblog.org/

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "But the autocorrect sometimes does make for a few laughs."

Aye, they are funny. You have to be very careful with "Swype" too!

[[deleted user]]

I just also did some research online because that's all the time I have currently, and I see that there are quite a few inaccuracies within the theory of evolution, especially when it comes to textbooks and academic books taught in schools and graduate schools.

Have you guys read any of it:

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles...

His book, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong

as well as this link that agrees with Wells that the Miller-Urey Experiment is no longer valid (hence should not be taught at schools as such, which it is).

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2...

[Hazel]

Lila, the first link, ignore it, its basic creationist claptrap, just because some things have been shown to not be right, doesn't discount the entire theory. Experiments and observations have repeatedly shown that the theory of evolution by natural selection is supported. Its so well supported that I could fill several museums with the evidence.

Jonathan wells is a creationist, thus he has an agenda.

Truthinscience.org is similarly following an agenda.

This ones a good one:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

[Gary]

Lila wrote: "I see that there are quite a few inaccuracies within the theory of evolution."

No there are not.

Some specific examples are indeed inaccurate, but are not the basis of the theory. The theory has masses of scientific evidence, the few claimed "holes" are just that, claims.

Lila wrote: "Have you guys read any of it:

Yep, it's comedy gold.

The DI are an intellectually dishonest group that tried to re-brand Creationism as "Intelligent Design" because the former violated the first amendment and was banned from science classes because of its explicitly biblical literalism based claims. They were so dishonest that they took a book banned from the science curriculum on freedom of religion grounds and search and replaced the word "Creationist" for "Design Proponents" but ballsed it up leaving an obvious typo that became jokingly referred to as "the missing link between Creationism and ID".

DI wrote: "SCIENCE NOW KNOWS THAT MANY OF THE PILLARS OF DARWINIAN THEORY ARE EITHER FALSE
OR MISLEADING."

That is a lie. Not just an inaccuracy or a mistake, an outright lie.

"To date however, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine Pubmed." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...

"The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007. This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce. The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1100) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent. The organization "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity" maintains a list of medical doctors and similar professionals who disagree that evolution can account for the diversity of life on earth. As of May 22, 2007, there were 224 Americans and 28 others from other countries that had signed a statement disputing "Darwinism".

[Travis]

Gary wrote: "Travis wrote: "Gary wrote: "You make a good point, that the people who use 'god' to explain their ideas about science are basically saying 'magic'."

Thank you. It was one of my revelations I had ..."

Always amuses me that people think believing in aliens is weird, but have no problem with angels.

Plus, if we are the only species the man in the sky made and he made the universe, that seems like a bad use of space.
It's huge and most of it is designed to kill us.

What's up with that?

[Travis]

Hazel wrote: "Lila, the first link, ignore it, its basic creationist claptrap, just because some things have been shown to not be right, doesn't discount the entire theory. Experiments and observations have repe..."

Just a general statement: I am generally a low key, wiling to chat, cheerful sort of guy, but I will be losing it on the next person that brings up creationism and even hints that it's a science.

Same with anyone that mentions:

The god of the gaps
Teaching controversy
and 'it's only a theory'

if you try to take magic and pretend it's science, expect a visit from the slap fairy.

[Gary]

Travis wrote: "It's huge and most of it is designed to kill us.

What's up with that?"

If everything was designed then why are plants green? Plants are essentially solar panels and green is the wavelength that the sun outputs most of. So either god made the sun the wrong colour, or he designed chlorophyll wrong and should have replaced it with retinal and made sure that retinal was actually more efficient in energy gathering than chlorophyll.

This is just part of a long list of biological features that seem badly designed and yet well adapted.

(Others include the disease risk of combining sexual and waste elimination systems, crossing the airway with the food way and enabling accidental choking deaths, why does the adaptation to resist malaria also cause sickle cell anaemia if you get two copies from your parents etc. There is not much I in ID.)

[Hazel]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson does a quick outline on Stupid Design... I'm may have posted this before, but meh, its apt at this time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN...

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Always amuses me that people think believing in aliens is weird"

I've always believed. I haven't had any encounters or anything. But, I believe in the possibility.

(May they look like Sean Bean!) ...kidding...

[Hazel]

If aliens ever turn up, I hope they are psirens, then they look like what you most want them too....

[[deleted user]]

Lila wrote: "I just also did some research online because that's all the time I have currently, and I see that there are quite a few inaccuracies within the theory of evolution, especially when it comes to text..."

Hey, there. I've believed in evolution since I learned about it at school.

When I saw the emails going back and forth today, I thought I'd look to see what I could find on the net. If one wanted to read some snippets ... if time is a luxury, this looks like it might have some good info.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

[Hazel]

If you can get acopy (netflix, or equivalent should help) have a watch of Origins of Us aswell, it was a great 3 part series on the evolution of the human genus.

[Hazel]

for the girls (and travis). Sean Bean as Sharpe, swearing like... well like a yorkshireman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjN8G2...

and this homage to the bean is really quite sad (and a bit graphic in places)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJODir...

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "for the girls (and travis). Sean Bean as Sharpe, swearing like... well like a yorkshireman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjN8G2...

and this homage to the bean is really quite ..."

Ahh.... How did you know I needed a Sean Bean fix. Well, when do I not?

Now, not being from the UK, I'm curious. Do the men of Yorkshire swear more, or more creatively, than most?

[Hazel]

Shannon wrote: "How did you know I needed a Sean Bean fix. "

Its a day ending in Y

I've been told recently that the UK gets the prize for most creative swearing. I don't think any sort of quantitative or qualitative study has actually been done on the difference in amount and quality of swearing across the different regions of the UK.