Exactly. In a philosophical sense, a building cannot in itself prove the identity and existance of the architect. There can be evidence, and subjective measure, but in and of itself the actual building cannot show its creator. for Christians with a scientific mind, we can find things that science doesn't explain, but has a rational explanation in the realm of a Creator. the problem with most is that level of acceptance of the unknown. Howeve,r evolution and standard scientific theory lies in faith as well, with an incomplete fossil record and other unexplained anomolies.
In the end, religious zealots and the atheistic scince standpoint are identical on the fact that certain foundations for either viewpoint must be accepted on a measure of faith. The only difference is that faith in what scientific evidence that for some reason hasn't been found and faith in a Creator, who, in the end, created us and governs us, of the two, scientific faith is easier to swallow. There is much less societal, moral, and spritual implications. like the guy sitting on the fence (agnostic) said, there's no real compulsion or obligation that way, and if science is right, the no harm done. If science is wrong, well, we don't want to have to think on it.
honestly, I'd love to see a debate on this, but to make it interesting. For every point you argue FOR your position, try to find one position you can't explain. Or, try arguing against your beliefs. It's not fun, but it will either strengthen you in your world view, or it will help you understand the flaws of your so called solid foundation (and I mean this for people on both sides of the argument)
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Aug 4 2005, 11:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Aug 4 2005, 11:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So you don't learn about religion in school over there? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I had a class in sophomore year called "World Cultures" where we focused primarily on the history of the middle and far east, with a particular focus on the various religions and societal structures. Toward the end we arrived at the european renaissance and looked at the churches role in society and learned the works of the masters. This is widely held as the hardest class at school, as the teacher is big on critical thinking and alternative learning (here, have a group and translate this japanese poem, I'll tell you what a few of the characters mean to make it easy for you), as well as class tests.
Could I see the complexities of the universe occuring naturally? yes the main argument I see from purusing articles when bored is "if such and such were off by .001%, the universe would cease to function/life would not occur/the planet would be uninhabitable If it hadn't happened that way, we wouldn't be here to try to explain why it is how it is. This is a theological debate, nothing more, and as such, neither side will be able to secure a decisive victory.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 01:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 01:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 02:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 02:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 12:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> four and a half billion years of randomness, something that appears "too complicated to have just happened" would probably come out of it given that the observer's lifespan is a mere ~80 years and "a long, long time" to the observer can be as short as 20 minutes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> From my perspective it seems like probability would still not work in evolutions favor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> but evolution is based in probabliity
if something gives you a higher chance of breeding, you have a higher chance of having kids. wait around for a few thousand years and that "slightly higher chance" starts showing <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sorry I still don't see how it could work. But that's probably because I'm a computer science major. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> take two creatures, and set up a world with room for 1000 every cycle, let every creature of type A have a 10% chance of producing offspring every cycle, let every creature of type B hav a 5% chance of producing offspring fill the world with two type As and six type Bs when the maximum population is reached, have every offspring above maximum kill two of the oldest creatures of the opposite type begin the simulation
edit: for the record. i am strongly religious. i do believe in god. i just feel that god should stay out of my science and science should stay out of my god.
<!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 01:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 01:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 01:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 4 2005, 01:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 4 2005, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 4 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My only goal is to let some of you know there are intelligent people out there who believe in God, and with good reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lets assume for the sake of argument that no one can come up with a scientific experiment to determine whether there is <i>or isn't</i> a God.
Now, show me the logic that explains why all further scientific theories should assume that God cannot exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Science is agnostic. Nobody has found a scientific reason for God to exist, or an experiment to test the validity of this "God theory" so his existence is irrelevent to science. All scientific inquiry can be conducted without even considering the question. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> which is what confuses me, natural selection does not rule out god. nor does it rule out ID NS and ID are compatible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> well, that depends, its compatible if you say that god created earth and then made it able to evovle itself, but most of the guys that believe in ID just rules out NS, i still believe that no god or godly power has anything to do with this, the universe might just be a spot on some huge mans cheek
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 01:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 01:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Exactly. In a philosophical sense, a building cannot in itself prove the identity and existance of the architect. There can be evidence, and subjective measure, but in and of itself the actual building cannot show its creator. for Christians with a scientific mind, we can find things that science doesn't explain, but has a rational explanation in the realm of a Creator. the problem with most is that level of acceptance of the unknown. Howeve,r evolution and standard scientific theory lies in faith as well, with an incomplete fossil record and other unexplained anomolies.
In the end, religious zealots and the atheistic scince standpoint are identical on the fact that certain foundations for either viewpoint must be accepted on a measure of faith. The only difference is that faith in what scientific evidence that for some reason hasn't been found and faith in a Creator, who, in the end, created us and governs us, of the two, scientific faith is easier to swallow. There is much less societal, moral, and spritual implications. like the guy sitting on the fence (agnostic) said, there's no real compulsion or obligation that way, and if science is right, the no harm done. If science is wrong, well, we don't want to have to think on it.
honestly, I'd love to see a debate on this, but to make it interesting. For every point you argue FOR your position, try to find one position you can't explain. Or, try arguing against your beliefs. It's not fun, but it will either strengthen you in your world view, or it will help you understand the flaws of your so called solid foundation (and I mean this for people on both sides of the argument) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The only thing science takes on faith is that humans can prove propositions wrong through experiment. So far, it's worked pretty well I think, as evidenced by the fact that you and I are debating something using little pulses of E&M and are probably across the world from eachother.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 05:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 05:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How do you explain 4.5 billion years of entropy with evolution then? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because you're misinterpreting the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the meaning of the word "entropy". There really isn't anything about evolution that goes against it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> take two creatures, and set up a world with room for 1000 every cycle, let every creature of type A have a 10% chance of producing offspring every cycle, let every creature of type B hav a 5% chance of producing offspring fill the world with two type As and six type Bs when the maximum population is reached, have every offspring above maximum kill two of the oldest creatures of the opposite type begin the simulation
edit: for the record. i am strongly religious. i do believe in god. i just feel that god should stay out of my science and science should stay out of my god. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is the way I see it.
For this example, we're going to treat Half-Life 2 as a living breathing entity. The organs will be represented by different subsystems like the rendering engine, networking layer, physics engine, game code etc. Tissue might be represented by objects which is a collection of related properties and methods. Cells we might represent by the individual functions. Each line of C code might represent a part of that cell. Going lower, assembler/machine code might represent the DNA that defines how that cell works. Going even lower, the individual bytes and then bits might represent atoms.
Now explain how random changes to any of those layers will give me Quake IV.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
QIV ^ HL2 Now just swap each of those bits in HL2. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Roberto+Aug 4 2005, 01:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Roberto @ Aug 4 2005, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Aug 4 2005, 11:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Aug 4 2005, 11:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So you don't learn about religion in school over there? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I had a class in sophomore year called "World Cultures" where we focused primarily on the history of the middle and far east, with a particular focus on the various religions and societal structures. Toward the end we arrived at the european renaissance and looked at the churches role in society and learned the works of the masters. This is widely held as the hardest class at school, as the teacher is big on critical thinking and alternative learning (here, have a group and translate this japanese poem, I'll tell you what a few of the characters mean to make it easy for you), as well as class tests. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't see what the problem is, then. Like lolly said, teach I.D. in this class, and leave science for science.
It's a good thing we're in 'Off-Topic' and not 'Discussions' so we can have our science vs. religion debates in peace, safe from those pesky moderators that try to spoil the fun of shouting at each other. Just make sure not to discuss too much, guys, or the thread will get moved to 'Discussions' where it would have to be locked.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
edited August 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 06:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 06:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is the way I see it.
For this example, we're going to treat Half-Life 2 as a living breathing entity. The organs will be represented by different subsystems like the rendering engine, networking layer, physics engine, game code etc. Tissue might be represented by objects which is a collection of related properties and methods. Cells we might represent by the individual functions. Each line of C code might represent a part of that cell. Going lower, assembler/machine code might represent the DNA that defines how that cell works. Going even lower, the individual bytes and then bits might represent atoms.
Now explain how random changes to any of those layers will give me Quake IV. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry, but that analogy is flawed.
Half-Life 2 evolving into Quake IV would be like a crocodile evolving into a seal. They both may be water-dwelling creatures (or FPSes), but they're totally different from one another. That's simply not how evolution works. Evolution displays gradual changes over vast amounts of time, and those changes aren't entirely random either, they're based selection pressures. The mutations may be random, but they're only likely to produce a change in the population if they give the organism a selective advantage.
EDIT: Besides, it can be proved that both HL2 and QIV were designed. Evolution isn't a transition between different designed objects, so it doesn't work to compare the two.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Aug 4 2005, 01:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Aug 4 2005, 01:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's a good thing we're in 'Off-Topic' and not 'Discussions' so we can have our science vs. religion debates in peace, safe from those pesky moderators that try to spoil the fun of shouting at each other. Just make sure not to discuss too much, guys, or the thread will get moved to 'Discussions' where it would have to be locked. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> we have to disguise it some way
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Aug 4 2005, 01:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Aug 4 2005, 01:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> take two creatures, and set up a world with room for 1000 every cycle, let every creature of type A have a 10% chance of producing offspring every cycle, let every creature of type B hav a 5% chance of producing offspring fill the world with two type As and six type Bs when the maximum population is reached, have every offspring above maximum kill two of the oldest creatures of the opposite type begin the simulation
edit: for the record. i am strongly religious. i do believe in god. i just feel that god should stay out of my science and science should stay out of my god. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is the way I see it.
For this example, we're going to treat Half-Life 2 as a living breathing entity. The organs will be represented by different subsystems like the rendering engine, networking layer, physics engine, game code etc. Tissue might be represented by objects which is a collection of related properties and methods. Cells we might represent by the individual functions. Each line of C code might represent a part of that cell. Going lower, assembler/machine code might represent the DNA that defines how that cell works. Going even lower, the individual bytes and then bits might represent atoms.
Now explain how random changes to any of those layers will give me Quake IV. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> DooM1 evolved into HL2 because of changes in its environment (and a little bit of help from Gabe N.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Aug 4 2005, 01:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Aug 4 2005, 01:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't see what the problem is, then. Like lolly said, teach I.D. in this class, and leave science for science. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because the class is already pretty full and since ID has very little cultural impact and would be difficult to shoehorn into the class, it shall be left at the wayside unless someone asks him about it, whereupon he would have us gather information as homeowrk and then proceed with a class debate for a day. Kind of a moot point for me now, as I am in college and not into the whole philosophy thing. It would have irked me to be forced to learn this unless there was quite a strong informational backing, as my time is much better spent on my own pursuits rather than pretending to care about a lecture on a scantily backed theory with no impact on my core interests.
<!--QuoteBegin-Insane+Aug 4 2005, 01:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Insane @ Aug 4 2005, 01:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Half-Life 2 evolving into Quake IV would be like a crocodile evolving into a seal. They both may be water-dwelling creatures (or FPSes), but they're totally different from one another. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe we should show how quake 4 and hl2 evolved from wolfenstein, with the various splits in the successive generations and a possible look into the failed iterations along the way.
<!--QuoteBegin-Roberto+Aug 4 2005, 01:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Roberto @ Aug 4 2005, 01:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Aug 4 2005, 01:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Aug 4 2005, 01:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't see what the problem is, then. Like lolly said, teach I.D. in this class, and leave science for science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because the class is already pretty full and since ID has very little cultural impact and would be difficult to shoehorn into the class, it shall be left at the wayside unless someone asks him about it, whereupon he would have us gather information as homeowrk and then proceed with a class debate for a day. Kind of a moot point for me now, as I am in college and not into the whole philosophy thing. It would have irked me to be forced to learn this unless there was quite a strong informational backing, as my time is much better spent on my own pursuits rather than pretending to care about a lecture on a scantily backed theory with no impact on my core interests. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I can say the reason ID is pushed to be taught in science is because the true core of it is based in science, and it's an insult to the scientists who have worked hard using the scientific theory to find data to support this theory.
How would you feel if you spent years refining your composition for a symphony orchestra, put in the effort, education, and all dedication needed for them to enter your score into an English essay writing contest. Not exactly the highlight of your career, eh?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 02:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, I can say the reason ID is pushed to be taught in science is because the true core of it is based in science, and it's an insult to the scientists who have worked hard using the scientific theory to find data to support this theory.
How would you feel if you spent years refining your composition for a symphony orchestra, put in the effort, education, and all dedication needed for them to enter your score into an English essay writing contest. Not exactly the highlight of your career, eh? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you are doing research into intelligent design, and you are calling yourself a scientist, it's not very likely to be the highlight of your career.
Again, show me an experiment or a piece of evidence that could be used to demonstrate that intelligent design is not true. Without such an experiment, it is not science.
<!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 02:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How would you feel if you spent years refining your composition for a symphony orchestra, put in the effort, education, and all dedication needed for them to enter your score into an English essay writing contest. Not exactly the highlight of your career, eh? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> sounds like I jsut wasted my life doing something I know nothing about and hate, then pansy out by having other people push my work instead of doing it myself. If you are putting in the years of work, I'm pretty sure you can find your target audience. Whether or not they care is a whole different matter.
the problem with people pushing the ID is that this is the Creationists' newest push. It's not that it's an acceptable theory, it's that "this might actually make it into the text books!!11one!"
People need to grow up, and stop using democracy to push their world views on others. Want to teach ID, and it's okay with your superiors? Fine, teach it. Want to ruin an entire world with pollution, war, and inflation? Fine, do it.
The cool thing about our democracy is that we're supposed to take extra steps to ensure we don't oppress the minority by the rule of the majority. In Iraq they're having a hell of a time because this is probably what will happen.
Anyone who thinks they can change someone's mind by arguing with them hasn't been paying attention to the divisive nature of news and "facts" that have been appearing since the 21st century. We're being divided, we're disagreeing more, and we're not conceding when we're wrong. It's the "New American Way" and it's disgusting and real.
Imagine this. In the entire universe, there is one planet in which a species, as improbable as it might be, evolved from single celled organisms, etc. etc. I'm talking basic Darwin evolution here.
Doesn't it make perfect sense that this one species would realize the improbability of such an occurrence and decide that, since the chances are only one in a gazillion, it must be impossible?
Well, what that species doesn't realize is they <i>are</i> that one in a gazillion. They are the proof that it is possible, no matter how improbable. The only reason that they exist, and are able to think such thoughts is because they're just extremely lucky in a statistical sense. If that one species is the only such species to have evolved in such a way, it is something that they would notice and naturally question.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> sounds like I jsut wasted my life doing something I know nothing about and hate, then pansy out by having other people push my work instead of doing it myself. If you are putting in the years of work, I'm pretty sure you can find your target audience. Whether or not they care is a whole different matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
see, your views are causing you to make an assumption about the scientist.
Why is it implied the scientist's goal is to prove ID? How about hundreds of scientists who have embraced faith after entering the profession and realizing that the current model did not explain our world properly? A scientist should IMO never go into a field with the goal of proving a certain theory over another, because he is now biased from the start. He/she should go into a field of study with the intent of finding accurate information and then comparing said information against surrent scientific findings, allowing the evidence to speak fo itself. Your view has the scientists trying to use science for their own means, not allowing science to truly be independant of motive.
<!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 02:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, I can say the reason ID is pushed to be taught in science is because the true core of it is based in science, and it's an insult to the scientists who have worked hard using the scientific theory to find data to support this theory.
How would you feel if you spent years refining your composition for a symphony orchestra, put in the effort, education, and all dedication needed for them to enter your score into an English essay writing contest. Not exactly the highlight of your career, eh? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Rad, I like you as a person so I'm going to try and save you from this one. In Scientific and Mathematical research, there are literally DECADES of "wasted" years on even the top researchers. They have an idea, they try to prove it, they try to set up some way to test it, they do "xxx" to try and prove "yyy" and either someone else pulls it off in a better method, nobody proves it for another 100 years, [edit] or some other reason comes up as to why the research is wasted[/edit].
Forcing this group's "idea" into the limelight "because it deserves attention" via political methods is wrong. If science is so close-minded then you don't need to worry; being close minded eventually gets you shut down in scientific fields. You can't progress when you refuse to think in new ways.
Granted, that may take a few (hundred) years [snipe] but we put up with the dark ages, why can't you put up with this?[/snipe]
I <3 you rad, and everything you stand for. That doesn't mean I believe much of it.
<!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 02:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Your view has the scientists trying to use science for their own means, not allowing science to truly be independant of motive. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> how many scientific reports are lost to obscurity because the scientist did not present his findings to the correct forum? It is beneficial for scientists to use science to their own means, as this is how scientists get money for more research.
<!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 02:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> rad, i want this "scientific evidence" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Search for it. Not my job to prove it, just tell you it's not something to casually throw out.
<!--QuoteBegin-radforChrist+Aug 4 2005, 02:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (radforChrist @ Aug 4 2005, 02:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+Aug 4 2005, 02:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ Aug 4 2005, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> rad, i want this "scientific evidence" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Search for it. Not my job to prove it, just tell you it's not something to casually throw out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> people will just casually throw it out unless they are given a compelling reason to search it out.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
edited August 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Speed 2 Dave+Aug 4 2005, 12:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Speed 2 Dave @ Aug 4 2005, 12:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the problem with people pushing the ID is that this is the Creationists' newest push. It's not that it's an acceptable theory, it's that "this might actually make it into the text books!!11one!"
People need to grow up, and stop using democracy to push their world views on others. Want to teach ID, and it's okay with your superiors? Fine, teach it. Want to ruin an entire world with pollution, war, and inflation? Fine, do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You understand that ID was began by hardcore evolutionists, right? Yeah. Stop blaming everything on us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The cool thing about our democracy is that we're supposed to take extra steps to ensure we don't oppress the minority by the rule of the majority. In Iraq they're having a hell of a time because this is probably what will happen.
Anyone who thinks they can change someone's mind by arguing with them hasn't been paying attention to the divisive nature of news and "facts" that have been appearing since the 21st century. We're being divided, we're disagreeing more, and we're not conceding when we're wrong. It's the "New American Way" and it's disgusting and real. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I agree here, though. But I also must say: Christianity is <i>not</i> a majority in America, no matter what any of you say. Even the statistics say that there are more people believing in evolution than Christianity, and thats a wholly view, not a crisscross view.
Comments
In the end, religious zealots and the atheistic scince standpoint are identical on the fact that certain foundations for either viewpoint must be accepted on a measure of faith. The only difference is that faith in what scientific evidence that for some reason hasn't been found and faith in a Creator, who, in the end, created us and governs us, of the two, scientific faith is easier to swallow. There is much less societal, moral, and spritual implications. like the guy sitting on the fence (agnostic) said, there's no real compulsion or obligation that way, and if science is right, the no harm done. If science is wrong, well, we don't want to have to think on it.
honestly, I'd love to see a debate on this, but to make it interesting. For every point you argue FOR your position, try to find one position you can't explain. Or, try arguing against your beliefs. It's not fun, but it will either strengthen you in your world view, or it will help you understand the flaws of your so called solid foundation (and I mean this for people on both sides of the argument)
I had a class in sophomore year called "World Cultures" where we focused primarily on the history of the middle and far east, with a particular focus on the various religions and societal structures. Toward the end we arrived at the european renaissance and looked at the churches role in society and learned the works of the masters. This is widely held as the hardest class at school, as the teacher is big on critical thinking and alternative learning (here, have a group and translate this japanese poem, I'll tell you what a few of the characters mean to make it easy for you), as well as class tests.
Could I see the complexities of the universe occuring naturally? yes
the main argument I see from purusing articles when bored is "if such and such were off by .001%, the universe would cease to function/life would not occur/the planet would be uninhabitable
If it hadn't happened that way, we wouldn't be here to try to explain why it is how it is. This is a theological debate, nothing more, and as such, neither side will be able to secure a decisive victory.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
four and a half billion years of randomness, something that appears "too complicated to have just happened" would probably come out of it given that the observer's lifespan is a mere ~80 years and "a long, long time" to the observer can be as short as 20 minutes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From my perspective it seems like probability would still not work in evolutions favor. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
but evolution is based in probabliity
if something gives you a higher chance of breeding, you have a higher chance of having kids. wait around for a few thousand years and that "slightly higher chance" starts showing <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry I still don't see how it could work. But that's probably because I'm a computer science major. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
take two creatures, and set up a world with room for 1000
every cycle, let every creature of type A have a 10% chance of producing offspring
every cycle, let every creature of type B hav a 5% chance of producing offspring
fill the world with two type As and six type Bs
when the maximum population is reached, have every offspring above maximum kill two of the oldest creatures of the opposite type
begin the simulation
edit: for the record. i am strongly religious. i do believe in god. i just feel that god should stay out of my science and science should stay out of my god.
That's perfectly fine, and I agree. I disagree however that a belief in god constitutes science.
Show me an experiment which could show depending on its outcome conclusively that got cannot exist. Then I'll give you that god can be a subject of science. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets assume for the sake of argument that no one can come up with a scientific experiment to determine whether there is <i>or isn't</i> a God.
Now, show me the logic that explains why all further scientific theories should assume that God cannot exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Science is agnostic. Nobody has found a scientific reason for God to exist, or an experiment to test the validity of this "God theory" so his existence is irrelevent to science. All scientific inquiry can be conducted without even considering the question. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
which is what confuses me, natural selection does not rule out god. nor does it rule out ID
NS and ID are compatible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, that depends, its compatible if you say that god created earth and then made it able to evovle itself, but most of the guys that believe in ID just rules out NS, i still believe that no god or godly power has anything to do with this, the universe might just be a spot on some huge mans cheek
In the end, religious zealots and the atheistic scince standpoint are identical on the fact that certain foundations for either viewpoint must be accepted on a measure of faith. The only difference is that faith in what scientific evidence that for some reason hasn't been found and faith in a Creator, who, in the end, created us and governs us, of the two, scientific faith is easier to swallow. There is much less societal, moral, and spritual implications. like the guy sitting on the fence (agnostic) said, there's no real compulsion or obligation that way, and if science is right, the no harm done. If science is wrong, well, we don't want to have to think on it.
honestly, I'd love to see a debate on this, but to make it interesting. For every point you argue FOR your position, try to find one position you can't explain. Or, try arguing against your beliefs. It's not fun, but it will either strengthen you in your world view, or it will help you understand the flaws of your so called solid foundation (and I mean this for people on both sides of the argument) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only thing science takes on faith is that humans can prove propositions wrong through experiment. So far, it's worked pretty well I think, as evidenced by the fact that you and I are debating something using little pulses of E&M and are probably across the world from eachother.
Because you're misinterpreting the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the meaning of the word "entropy". There really isn't anything about evolution that goes against it.
A few references:
<a href='http://www.charleswood.ca/reading/evolution.php' target='_blank'>One</a>
<a href='http://www.endeav.org/evolut/entropy/' target='_blank'>Two</a>
<a href='http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html' target='_blank'>Three</a>
<a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo' target='_blank'>Four</a>
every cycle, let every creature of type A have a 10% chance of producing offspring
every cycle, let every creature of type B hav a 5% chance of producing offspring
fill the world with two type As and six type Bs
when the maximum population is reached, have every offspring above maximum kill two of the oldest creatures of the opposite type
begin the simulation
edit: for the record. i am strongly religious. i do believe in god. i just feel that god should stay out of my science and science should stay out of my god. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the way I see it.
For this example, we're going to treat Half-Life 2 as a living breathing entity.
The organs will be represented by different subsystems like the rendering engine, networking layer, physics engine, game code etc.
Tissue might be represented by objects which is a collection of related properties and methods.
Cells we might represent by the individual functions.
Each line of C code might represent a part of that cell.
Going lower, assembler/machine code might represent the DNA that defines how that cell works.
Going even lower, the individual bytes and then bits might represent atoms.
Now explain how random changes to any of those layers will give me Quake IV.
Now just swap each of those bits in HL2. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I had a class in sophomore year called "World Cultures" where we focused primarily on the history of the middle and far east, with a particular focus on the various religions and societal structures. Toward the end we arrived at the european renaissance and looked at the churches role in society and learned the works of the masters. This is widely held as the hardest class at school, as the teacher is big on critical thinking and alternative learning (here, have a group and translate this japanese poem, I'll tell you what a few of the characters mean to make it easy for you), as well as class tests. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see what the problem is, then. Like lolly said, teach I.D. in this class, and leave science for science.
For this example, we're going to treat Half-Life 2 as a living breathing entity.
The organs will be represented by different subsystems like the rendering engine, networking layer, physics engine, game code etc.
Tissue might be represented by objects which is a collection of related properties and methods.
Cells we might represent by the individual functions.
Each line of C code might represent a part of that cell.
Going lower, assembler/machine code might represent the DNA that defines how that cell works.
Going even lower, the individual bytes and then bits might represent atoms.
Now explain how random changes to any of those layers will give me Quake IV. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but that analogy is flawed.
Half-Life 2 evolving into Quake IV would be like a crocodile evolving into a seal. They both may be water-dwelling creatures (or FPSes), but they're totally different from one another. That's simply not how evolution works. Evolution displays gradual changes over vast amounts of time, and those changes aren't entirely random either, they're based selection pressures. The mutations may be random, but they're only likely to produce a change in the population if they give the organism a selective advantage.
EDIT: Besides, it can be proved that both HL2 and QIV were designed. Evolution isn't a transition between different designed objects, so it doesn't work to compare the two.
we have to disguise it some way
every cycle, let every creature of type A have a 10% chance of producing offspring
every cycle, let every creature of type B hav a 5% chance of producing offspring
fill the world with two type As and six type Bs
when the maximum population is reached, have every offspring above maximum kill two of the oldest creatures of the opposite type
begin the simulation
edit: for the record. i am strongly religious. i do believe in god. i just feel that god should stay out of my science and science should stay out of my god. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the way I see it.
For this example, we're going to treat Half-Life 2 as a living breathing entity.
The organs will be represented by different subsystems like the rendering engine, networking layer, physics engine, game code etc.
Tissue might be represented by objects which is a collection of related properties and methods.
Cells we might represent by the individual functions.
Each line of C code might represent a part of that cell.
Going lower, assembler/machine code might represent the DNA that defines how that cell works.
Going even lower, the individual bytes and then bits might represent atoms.
Now explain how random changes to any of those layers will give me Quake IV. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
DooM1 evolved into HL2 because of changes in its environment (and a little bit of help from Gabe N.)
Because the class is already pretty full and since ID has very little cultural impact and would be difficult to shoehorn into the class, it shall be left at the wayside unless someone asks him about it, whereupon he would have us gather information as homeowrk and then proceed with a class debate for a day. Kind of a moot point for me now, as I am in college and not into the whole philosophy thing.
It would have irked me to be forced to learn this unless there was quite a strong informational backing, as my time is much better spent on my own pursuits rather than pretending to care about a lecture on a scantily backed theory with no impact on my core interests.
Maybe we should show how quake 4 and hl2 evolved from wolfenstein, with the various splits in the successive generations and a possible look into the failed iterations along the way.
The earth is <i>not</i> a closed system. The sun constantly introduces more energy into it.
Because the class is already pretty full and since ID has very little cultural impact and would be difficult to shoehorn into the class, it shall be left at the wayside unless someone asks him about it, whereupon he would have us gather information as homeowrk and then proceed with a class debate for a day. Kind of a moot point for me now, as I am in college and not into the whole philosophy thing.
It would have irked me to be forced to learn this unless there was quite a strong informational backing, as my time is much better spent on my own pursuits rather than pretending to care about a lecture on a scantily backed theory with no impact on my core interests. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I can say the reason ID is pushed to be taught in science is because the true core of it is based in science, and it's an insult to the scientists who have worked hard using the scientific theory to find data to support this theory.
How would you feel if you spent years refining your composition for a symphony orchestra, put in the effort, education, and all dedication needed for them to enter your score into an English essay writing contest. Not exactly the highlight of your career, eh?
How would you feel if you spent years refining your composition for a symphony orchestra, put in the effort, education, and all dedication needed for them to enter your score into an English essay writing contest. Not exactly the highlight of your career, eh? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you are doing research into intelligent design, and you are calling yourself a scientist, it's not very likely to be the highlight of your career.
Again, show me an experiment or a piece of evidence that could be used to demonstrate that intelligent design is not true. Without such an experiment, it is not science.
sounds like I jsut wasted my life doing something I know nothing about and hate, then pansy out by having other people push my work instead of doing it myself. If you are putting in the years of work, I'm pretty sure you can find your target audience. Whether or not they care is a whole different matter.
People need to grow up, and stop using democracy to push their world views on others. Want to teach ID, and it's okay with your superiors? Fine, teach it. Want to ruin an entire world with pollution, war, and inflation? Fine, do it.
The cool thing about our democracy is that we're supposed to take extra steps to ensure we don't oppress the minority by the rule of the majority. In Iraq they're having a hell of a time because this is probably what will happen.
Anyone who thinks they can change someone's mind by arguing with them hasn't been paying attention to the divisive nature of news and "facts" that have been appearing since the 21st century. We're being divided, we're disagreeing more, and we're not conceding when we're wrong. It's the "New American Way" and it's disgusting and real.
Doesn't it make perfect sense that this one species would realize the improbability of such an occurrence and decide that, since the chances are only one in a gazillion, it must be impossible?
Well, what that species doesn't realize is they <i>are</i> that one in a gazillion. They are the proof that it is possible, no matter how improbable. The only reason that they exist, and are able to think such thoughts is because they're just extremely lucky in a statistical sense. If that one species is the only such species to have evolved in such a way, it is something that they would notice and naturally question.
*edit* I'm in a discussion sandwich!
sounds like I jsut wasted my life doing something I know nothing about and hate, then pansy out by having other people push my work instead of doing it myself. If you are putting in the years of work, I'm pretty sure you can find your target audience. Whether or not they care is a whole different matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
see, your views are causing you to make an assumption about the scientist.
Why is it implied the scientist's goal is to prove ID? How about hundreds of scientists who have embraced faith after entering the profession and realizing that the current model did not explain our world properly? A scientist should IMO never go into a field with the goal of proving a certain theory over another, because he is now biased from the start. He/she should go into a field of study with the intent of finding accurate information and then comparing said information against surrent scientific findings, allowing the evidence to speak fo itself. Your view has the scientists trying to use science for their own means, not allowing science to truly be independant of motive.
How would you feel if you spent years refining your composition for a symphony orchestra, put in the effort, education, and all dedication needed for them to enter your score into an English essay writing contest. Not exactly the highlight of your career, eh? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rad, I like you as a person so I'm going to try and save you from this one. In Scientific and Mathematical research, there are literally DECADES of "wasted" years on even the top researchers. They have an idea, they try to prove it, they try to set up some way to test it, they do "xxx" to try and prove "yyy" and either someone else pulls it off in a better method, nobody proves it for another 100 years, [edit] or some other reason comes up as to why the research is wasted[/edit].
Forcing this group's "idea" into the limelight "because it deserves attention" via political methods is wrong. If science is so close-minded then you don't need to worry; being close minded eventually gets you shut down in scientific fields. You can't progress when you refuse to think in new ways.
Granted, that may take a few (hundred) years [snipe] but we put up with the dark ages, why can't you put up with this?[/snipe]
I <3 you rad, and everything you stand for. That doesn't mean I believe much of it.
how many scientific reports are lost to obscurity because the scientist did not present his findings to the correct forum? It is beneficial for scientists to use science to their own means, as this is how scientists get money for more research.
Search for it. Not my job to prove it, just tell you it's not something to casually throw out.
Search for it. Not my job to prove it, just tell you it's not something to casually throw out. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
people will just casually throw it out unless they are given a compelling reason to search it out.
People need to grow up, and stop using democracy to push their world views on others. Want to teach ID, and it's okay with your superiors? Fine, teach it. Want to ruin an entire world with pollution, war, and inflation? Fine, do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You understand that ID was began by hardcore evolutionists, right? Yeah. Stop blaming everything on us.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The cool thing about our democracy is that we're supposed to take extra steps to ensure we don't oppress the minority by the rule of the majority. In Iraq they're having a hell of a time because this is probably what will happen.
Anyone who thinks they can change someone's mind by arguing with them hasn't been paying attention to the divisive nature of news and "facts" that have been appearing since the 21st century. We're being divided, we're disagreeing more, and we're not conceding when we're wrong. It's the "New American Way" and it's disgusting and real. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I agree here, though. But I also must say: Christianity is <i>not</i> a majority in America, no matter what any of you say. Even the statistics say that there are more people believing in evolution than Christianity, and thats a wholly view, not a crisscross view.