In Religion and Politics - Page 3 - DodgeBoard.com

agnostic · #21 (**permalink**) 12-14-2005, 02:14 PM

I couldn't give you any more rep until i spread it detector, but let me first tell you I liked this statement..

Quote:

When I pull that dollar out of my pocket and lay it on the counter, I don't think about being offended because it says In God We Trust, because I believe in the spirit behind it. I know God, to me, represents the good that is in all of us if we just take the time to see it for what it is.

I think the same way. BUT I also see how it can offend some.

You typed a bunch since I last checked the forums, but I'm all caught up now. Seems as though we've got a little discussion here about ID and evolution. Lemme give you my standpoint.

First I think it's important to clarify the scientific "how we got here." Evolution is not a creation theory. It does not explain how life began. It explains how life evolved from that point. That is why evolution is so compatible with creationism, but people don't realize that!! Evolution is undoubtedly supported by science and in nature.

From Wikipedia.."In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species."

Evolution is simply the process by which organisms get better. Why do you think antibiotics stop working? Evolution.

I don't even want to talk about the big bang theory. I don't know much about it, but what I do know about it, it doesn't seem anymore appealing to me than Genesis.

Here's my beef with Intelligent Design:

I don't just accept arguments, or anything, without speculation. Things are wrong until proven right. Because of that, they have a burden of proof, and a substantial leap into truth. Intelligent design is simply a circumstantial argument. Lemme clarify. Just because there is design in the universe, doesn't prove a designer. AND, even if it did, who/what/when/how was that designer? Some important questions ID cannot answer. Furthermore, "design" in the universe is subjective and open to interpretation.

Found more at the New Yorker..

"First of all, intelligent design is not what people often assume it is. For one thing, I.D. is not Biblical literalism. Unlike earlier generations of creationists—the so-called Young Earthers and scientific creationists—proponents of intelligent design do not believe that the universe was created in six days, that Earth is ten thousand years old, or that the fossil record was deposited during Noah’s flood. (Indeed, they shun the label “creationism” altogether.) Nor does I.D. flatly reject evolution: adherents freely admit that some evolutionary change occurred during the history of life on Earth. Although the movement is loosely allied with, and heavily funded by, various conservative Christian groups—and although I.D. plainly maintains that life was created—it is generally silent about the identity of the creator."

It continues..

"The movement’s main positive claim is that there are things in the world, most notably life, that cannot be accounted for by known natural causes and show features that, in any other context, we would attribute to intelligence. Living organisms are too complex to be explained by any natural—or, more precisely, by any mindless—process. Instead, the design inherent in organisms can be accounted for only by invoking a designer, and one who is very, very smart."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050530fa_fact

To wrap up on ID before this gets too long..

The first sentence of that last quotation explains the logical fallacy involved with ID. Organisms show elements of design---->Just can't be done naturally---->Designed---->God. What!?!?!?!?!?!? How in the hell do you go from something showing elements of design to proving the existence of God? Let me ask you this, what would the universe, and the organisms in it, look like WITHOUT design? Is it even possible!?

Ok ok there is my rant on intelligent design. It just makes too big of a jump in logic for me to be true.

Ok last thing. While I partially agree with your contention that it is good for kids to go to church..I also disagree. While I see the good things coming from going to an organization teaching morals and teaching a good life, I also see the dangers. God is used and abused too much in this country and in this world. We see it with the xian taliban and we see it in the middle east. I do NOT like brain washing little kids. If its something that a rational person has faith in, I'm ok with that.

TexKan · #22 (**permalink**) 12-14-2005, 02:24 PM

We saw it with Jim Jones - I think it's a very good thing to give your children the freedom to choose - expose them to everything - we can go to church anywhere - it doesn't have to be in a building. The purpose is to come together and give thanks to a higher being that you feel is worthy of your love. Too bad lots of "churches" decide that the object is their preacher. I'm just not into churches - I will help them financially if needed but I prefer not to be around to see how the congragation shows "love" to one another when one of their sheep has strayed. It's ususally a pew splitting event that I can live without.

Detector · #23 (**permalink**) 12-14-2005, 02:57 PM

Quote:

I don't just accept arguments, or anything, without speculation. Things are wrong until proven right.

I couldn't agree more and that is the problem I have with evolution, or to be more accurate, macro-evolution. There is no question evolution, on the micro level, is fact. We have plenty of evidence in fossil records to prove it. The fact they we do have plenty of evidence of micro evolution and absolutely no evidence of macro evolution, the reason to this day it is still only a theory, should be a red flag.

Quote:

From Wikipedia.."In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species."

Pretty bold of Wikiprdia to make a statement science has yet to prove. But then science has been teaching this for many years now knowing full well they can't back it up with fact, only theory. If they could we would not be having this discussion.

Pretty much after Darwin proclaimed his theory that all life on earth comes from a single parent organism there was little question because evolution within species was evident. As science rolled along and searched for the evidence of macro evolution, evolving from one species to another, they begin to find what seemed to be evidence to support macro evolution in the form of different species that shared some of the same attributes, but seemed to be missing any evidence of the actual evolving from one species to another.

They lined up different species that shared some of the same physical attribute of one species and part of another and dubbed it evidence of macro evolution. This convinced the science community for awhile but after time again the question as to why no evidence had been found in the form of a species evolving. In fact it was science that calculated the odds of not having found such evidence that once again brought question to the evolution theory.

Again I say, show me this evidence of a species evolving into another and it case closed. Not just a theory, not just the fact that within a species evolution takes place, but solid evidence. There is, however, scientific proof that the chances we have not found evidence yet to show one species evolving to another, if it happened, is astronomical to say the least. Until that time one theory is as good as another in my books.

Quote:

God is used and abused too much in this country and in this world. We see it with the xian taliban and we see it in the middle east. I do NOT like brain washing little kids. If its something that a rational person has faith in, I'm ok with that.

I couldn't agree more.

Sapphire · #24 (**permalink**) 12-23-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Drifter

Great Posts by everyone.

Personal attacks on what someone believes is one of the lowest things possible. Just because you dont agree doesnt mean you should resort to 3rd grade name calling.

Then what's up with the personal attacks on vegetarians I've seen on this board? Isn't that a personal belief as well?

Bubba · #25 (**permalink**) 12-23-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

Then what's up with the personal attacks on vegetarians I've seen on this board? Isn't that a personal belief as well?

It's not so much a personal attack on vegetarians, more of a "inside joke" about one of our most favorite (heavy sarcacsm intended) people from the other board who is/was a thorn in everybody's side, and who played a very large part in why everybody joined this board and left the other one.

TexKan · #26 (**permalink**) 12-24-2005, 02:07 PM

I don't think ANYBODY really cares what you eat or don't eat and the term is used like Bubba said. It's kina like with Peta - ya know IF I want and can AFFORD a mink - who are you to say I'm not entitled?......They are legal and imported under regulation. same with Vegans......just cause you don't eat meat doesn't mean I'm horrible cause I do..........