Here we go again

[The Gronk]

I don't even get why the religious types want to believe we came from a lump of clay or whatever it is. If that was the case, then why did the creator make so many mistakes building our bodies, and give us components we don't need?

If I was religious I would think it far more impressive to think that the creator had designed the universe with a set of rules (lets call them the laws of physics) from which stars, planets, life and eventually homo sapiens would evolve.

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Matabele]
one last time kiddies:

EVOLUTION AND THEISM ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly.

This is not a neither/nor argument. There are bigger questions than HOW!!

Are we cosmic accidents of fate or were people planned to be here on earth? Is there something else out there or is our finite little existence on earth it????
[/quote]

Your argument is fundementally flawed and contains no clause for speculation or debate.

To say "fate" implies a 3rd party having some form fo control, your counter argument is also centred around a 3rd party.

You have not yet grasped the concepts of ID, evolution or this thread.

 

[Dan]

one last time kiddies:

EVOLUTION AND THEISM ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

No and your statement has nothing to do with the argument at hand!

Read the OP it clearly states a religious stand point putting ID up against evolution therefore in the confines of the reference material and the topic, they are mutually exclusive.

You can not simply put in a throw away line and expect us to see it as a peral of wisdom!

By the way Theism is a belief not based on fact and therefore by definition not true. There fore your line of mutual exclusivity is so drastically flawed that byso could debate it.

Evolution does not Exclude the possibility of a creator or a god, nor does it argue against such a thing in any way shape or form. ID debates against evolution.

The debate is not about Theism either!


:dance: :dance: :dance:

now play properly or don't play at all. You wont be lauded for throw away lines in here and you wont be backed by multitudes of single minded drones either

 

[Canteen Worker]

Daniel - you are so full of crap it isn't funny. You slightly subvert the topic or subject, add your own bias and then claim lack of comprehension if someone chooses to disagree with you.

I do not take ID as a credible scientific theory (and I have looked into it closely) though I think there are aspects of the stuff that are worth looking into. Funnily enough I believe that there are some good issues to debate and there is no great harm in examining the strengths and flaws of such material.

The big debate in the US - whether it should be taught (examined and investigated) ior not, not whether it is true.

As someone who actually works in a school and teaches some 'Religion' and Ethics - we don't brainwash kids or tell them what to think - we ask questions and work through processes on how one should approach some of life's big questions. We don't build fences in order to ensure that people play intellectual avoidance of big questions by drudging up suoperflouous material.

If I was religious I would think it far more impressive to think that the creator had designed the universe with a set of rules (lets call them the laws of physics) from which stars, planets, life and eventually homo sapiens would evolve.

Good comment Gronk and you will find that many Christians concur - the media though likes to play the adversarial approach with the looney Religious Right as it is easier to pigeon-hole their arguments and makes for better sport in the debate - though it doesn't really address any of the issues, even with ID!!!

(I expect more crap from Daniel on this now - though won't be surprised that he won't address the actual issues - obfuscation!!!!!

 

[Dan]

Daniel - you are so full of crap it isn't funny. You slightly subvert the topic or subject, add your own bias and then claim lack of comprehension if someone chooses to disagree with you.

I do not take ID as a credible scientific theory (and I have looked into it closely) though I think there are aspects of the stuff that are worth looking into. Funnily enough I believe that there are some good issues to debate and there is no great harm in examining the strengths and flaws of such material.

The big debate in the US - whether it should be taught (examined and investigated) ior not, not whether it is true.

As someone who actually works in a school and teaches some 'Religion' and Ethics - we don't brainwash kids or tell them what to think - we ask questions and work through processes on how one should approach some of life's big questions. We don't build fences in order to ensure that people play intellectual avoidance of big questions by drudging up suoperflouous material.

If I was religious I would think it far more impressive to think that the creator had designed the universe with a set of rules (lets call them the laws of physics) from which stars, planets, life and eventually homo sapiens would evolve.

nice try but wrong.....

The debate in the US is whether it should be taught in Science class. this is what has people up in arms, because it is not a science! :bdh: :bdh: :bdh: :bdh:

 

[Canteen Worker]

I am not wrong in my first sentence.

In your last sentence I agree!

 

[Dan]

then why debate. You didnt even go anywhere near the topic.

Religion is putting ID up against science and evolution, that is the topic no subversion apart from you trying to mask the point by countering with an off topic argument

 

[earl]

ill be honest,
.you will have no debate from me anymore because of all the crap thats been said , i dont know which side im on now. you have all bloody lost me so just continue on. Its a good laugh.

 

[Dan]

we love a debate. Somehow through hours of pretending to work, I learnt the art of study.

Arguing against matas and CW is easy.

Matas tatic is old and stale and he no longer has the time to put into justifying his argument.

CW gets frustrated quickly.

When minds wont bend, they break!

 

[Dan]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=386453

 

[Nutzcraw]

*on same wave length as earl* Go Manly!!!!!!

 

[Matabele]

[quote author=Matabele]
one last time kiddies:

EVOLUTION AND THEISM ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

No and your statement has nothing to do with the argument at hand!

Read the OP it clearly states a religious stand point putting ID up against evolution therefore in the confines of the reference material and the topic, they are mutually exclusive.

You can not simply put in a throw away line and expect us to see it as a peral of wisdom!

By the way Theism is a belief not based on fact and therefore by definition not true. There fore your line of mutual exclusivity is so drastically flawed that byso could debate it.

Evolution does not Exclude the possibility of a creator or a god, nor does it argue against such a thing in any way shape or form. ID debates against evolution.

The debate is not about Theism either!


:dance: :dance: :dance:

now play properly or don't play at all. You wont be lauded for throw away lines in here and you wont be backed by multitudes of single minded drones either
[/quote]

Sometimes you are such a clot.

Straight answer Dan:

Do you think that it has to be a case of one or the other - evolution or God?

 

[Dan]

no and that is not the argument or what I am getting at.....

Straight answer from you

Do you understand the point of the original post?

 

[SilentBob]

Where did you get the ID vs. evolution topic from? The original post from ManlyBacker? You seem to be interpeting it as saying it's either evolution or ID (hence your one sided debate) but I don't read the article as saying that at all. Enlighten me please.

 

[Dan]

SB it was brought up in the early posts

 

[SilentBob]

Clears that up then, you referred to the OP (original post?) in a reply to Matabele, had me confuzzled.

 

[Dan]

yup its a string from the OP...confusion is part of the secret but shhhh!

 

[Matabele]

Last December, a US court sparked controversy when it ruled that intelligent design should not be taught alongside evolution theory.

From the original post.

 

[SilentBob]

Ken Miller on ID

Very good lecture/talk on this topic for anyone interested, it's only a few minutes off two hours though.