I'm a Pastafarian. RAmen, brother! As long as there are schools that want to try forcing ID into their science curriculums, or at least try to get creationism in for a Philosophy curriculum, the FSM will always be there.
do you actually believe in it, or is it like a 14 year old telling everyone he is a satanist to get a response?
No, I believe in it for the political causes only. There is much more to the FSM than just being another religion...
Man!!!.......I get alllllll the way how from work, just to find out Marconius still hasn't given me + karma for finding a topic we agree on........sighhhhhhhhhhh, I am beginning to think that maybe he isn't going to do it. lolMarconius wrote:
No, I believe in it for the political causes only. There is much more to the FSM than just being another religion...
The way I figure, we'll never get this figured out. It's going to take one of three things:
a)exsistence of a "God" is discovered beyond scientific denial.
2)Extraterrestrial life is discovered beyond scientific denial
d)Appocalyptic "thinning" of the human species...war, famine...etc.
It'd be nice if we could all just get along but unfortunately it ain't going to happen. Biblical "appocalypse" should be considered under heading A. I don't even think a conclusive link to a common Mape, man/ape, would solve the debate over ID and Evolution.
One last thought...guilty as I am for descriminating against ID folks, I'd surely dislike some of the treatment they recieve. Faith shouldn't be politicized the way it is, for or against. There'd be an interesting dynamic if believing in Evolution ever became a fanatical idea, outside of the social norm. I guess anyway you cut it we're just battling over something no one can definitively prove, I guess that's what makes it fun.
a)exsistence of a "God" is discovered beyond scientific denial.
2)Extraterrestrial life is discovered beyond scientific denial
d)Appocalyptic "thinning" of the human species...war, famine...etc.
It'd be nice if we could all just get along but unfortunately it ain't going to happen. Biblical "appocalypse" should be considered under heading A. I don't even think a conclusive link to a common Mape, man/ape, would solve the debate over ID and Evolution.
One last thought...guilty as I am for descriminating against ID folks, I'd surely dislike some of the treatment they recieve. Faith shouldn't be politicized the way it is, for or against. There'd be an interesting dynamic if believing in Evolution ever became a fanatical idea, outside of the social norm. I guess anyway you cut it we're just battling over something no one can definitively prove, I guess that's what makes it fun.
and still i'm stunned that this all is still a matter of a discussion!
but hey, at that time we europeans started the age of enlightment the americans started slavery, and of course, after 200 years the result will differ just joking, i'm tired. nothing offending, just something to think about
but hey, at that time we europeans started the age of enlightment the americans started slavery, and of course, after 200 years the result will differ just joking, i'm tired. nothing offending, just something to think about
Every generation breeds debate. For some, such will serve as a point of enlightenment.
In the same sense you can not apply the Scientific Method to Evolution. You can not test either one, so therefore each one can not really use the Scientific Method.Marconius wrote:
Point&Shoot...the idea here in the US is that Creationists want Creationism to be taught directly alongside Evolution as if they were equal theories, when the fact is they are not. They are both theories, yes, but Creationism doesn't use the Scientific Method, and therefore cannot be taught in a Science class, which is what they want (They actually want Evolution to be dropped completely, but that's besides the point).
Evolution: You can observe nature, create a hypothesis (Life forms change overtime and transform into another life) and predations, but you can not do a real test. (We have tried to test the theory, Planet Earth, but the results only yielded one cell life, and not complex life like "evolution" says)
Creation: You can observe nature, create a hypothesis (God or a higher being created everything in the universe) and predictions, but you can not do a real test.
With that said, using your own words about Creation, evolution should not be taught in schools.
There are other religions, like Islam, that believe in Creation. The media puts to much of a Christian vs the World spin on everything.Marconius wrote:
I know your arguments Daysniper, and they are good ones. It really comes down to whether or not the parents of the school district will allow the school district to start funding a Philosophy section of the school, in order to appease creationists. You'll start running into the Lemon test if they Only want a Creationist class created (in which tax payers will be paying for only one representation, which is something I am very against). ID is just christian creationism in disguise. Just remember that if such a philosophy class is taught, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism will have to be taught as well.
@ the person who stated that teaching Creation will effect the First amendment, that is not true. The first amendment states that the government can endorse a religion. As stated above Creation is a theory believed by more then one religion.
Personally, I think they should teach both. This give people the option to choose what theory they believe in. I also think that evolution should actually be broken down into multiple parts. I personally believe in Creation, but also believe in the Survival of the Fittest part of Evolution. I see that nature does change, but not the way that current Evolution teaches.
I also think that if they only teach the Survival of the Fittest part of Darwin's theory/Evolution, (which he later stated that he wish he did not create according to his daughter.) This will defuse the controversy, because most Creationist feel that they are being singled out.
Edit: Also by just teaching the Survival of the Fittest part of Evolution, we will not have to teach other ideas of how life got placed on Earth, like Scientology.
Last edited by dubbs (2006-05-31 22:28:26)
You're leaving out all of the evidence that supports evolution, like DNA polymorphisms, similar structures in different animals, the fossil record, etc... All creationists can say about this evidence is that God did it for some reason that is beyond our understanding. The long and the short of it is evolution has a very good explanation for why your DNA and my DNA is very similar to jerry the Ape's DNA, and creationism has none. Well, aside from 'God did it and I don't know why' (See Jamdude's posts in the latter part of the 50 page religion thread).dubbs wrote:
In the same sense you can not apply the Scientific Method to Evolution. You can not test either one, so therefore each one can not really use the Scientific Method.
Evolution: You can observe nature, create a hypothesis (Life forms change overtime and transform into another life) and predations, but you can not do a real test. (We have tried to test the theory, Planet Earth, but the results only yielded one cell life, and not complex life like "evolution" says)
Creation: You can observe nature, create a hypothesis (God or a higher being created everything in the universe) and predictions, but you can not do a real test.
With that said, using your own words about Creation, evolution should not be taught in schools.
This is why you cannot teach creationism as anything but philosophy. To teach it as science assumes the existence of God, and the last time I checked not everyone believes in your God, or any God for that matter. Christians (and I generalize here) are fond of calling atheism a religion. If that is true, you would be impinging on the rights of the so called "religious atheists" by teaching God in science. You can't have it both ways. Furthermore, evolution is not just a 'theory' at this point, it has a great deal of evidence to support it. Creationism, scientology, and any of the other theist theories regarding the creation of life have very little evidence, and most of that is flimsly evidence against evolution. Basically, it is possible that God created all life and the universe 6000 years ago. It's also possible that the flying spaghetti monster created all life last week and fabricated all our memories of events prior. Is it possible to prove otherwise? Not really. The best and only course of action is to teach what is most probable and has the most evidence, and that is evolution.dubbs wrote:
There are other religions, like Islam, that believe in Creation. The media puts to much of a Christian vs the World spin on everything.
@ the person who stated that teaching Creation will effect the First amendment, that is not true. The first amendment states that the government can endorse a religion. As stated above Creation is a theory believed by more then one religion.
Personally, I think they should teach both. This give people the option to choose what theory they believe in. I also think that evolution should actually be broken down into multiple parts. I personally believe in Creation, but also believe in the Survival of the Fittest part of Evolution. I see that nature does change, but not the way that current Evolution teaches.
I also think that if they only teach the Survival of the Fittest part of Darwin's theory/Evolution, (which he later stated that he wish he did not create according to his daughter.) This will defuse the controversy, because most Creationist feel that they are being singled out.
Edit: Also by just teaching the Survival of the Fittest part of Evolution, we will not have to teach other ideas of how life got placed on Earth, like Scientology.
I beg to differ with you on the ability to Test evolution. Tests have already been carried out using bacteria as test cases for evolution. The lifespan and reproduction of bacteria is extremely fast, and therefore can be observed a lot easier than a more complex organism, such as a human. Observed genetic mutations, such as bacteria and virii gaining drug resistance via positive mutation and universal adaptation to pressure are direct indicators of an evolutionary process. Bacterial resistance = direct evolution. Read about it here.
The fact of the matter is you CAN test for evolution, which is why it is still a theory. It's working it's way down the Scientific Process, and is utilizing scientific methods to come about its answers, facts, and data. You Cannot test for a "Creator" or god without succumbing to your own belief and faith, and that directly rules out any formation of a Scientific Process, as results of Faith are ENTIRELY subjective. Once again, they can both be taught, but creationism as a philosophy and evolution as a scientific study in biology.
The fact of the matter is you CAN test for evolution, which is why it is still a theory. It's working it's way down the Scientific Process, and is utilizing scientific methods to come about its answers, facts, and data. You Cannot test for a "Creator" or god without succumbing to your own belief and faith, and that directly rules out any formation of a Scientific Process, as results of Faith are ENTIRELY subjective. Once again, they can both be taught, but creationism as a philosophy and evolution as a scientific study in biology.
Not trying to argue with you, but software can be programmed to "react" in anyway that you want it to.Marconius wrote:
I beg to differ with you on the ability to Test evolution. Tests have already been carried out using bacteria as test cases for evolution. The lifespan and reproduction of bacteria is extremely fast, and therefore can be observed a lot easier than a more complex organism, such as a human. Observed genetic mutations, such as bacteria and virii gaining drug resistance via positive mutation and universal adaptation to pressure are direct indicators of an evolutionary process. Bacterial resistance = direct evolution. Read about it here.
The fact of the matter is you CAN test for evolution, which is why it is still a theory. It's working it's way down the Scientific Process, and is utilizing scientific methods to come about its answers, facts, and data. You Cannot test for a "Creator" or god without succumbing to your own belief and faith, and that directly rules out any formation of a Scientific Process, as results of Faith are ENTIRELY subjective. Once again, they can both be taught, but creationism as a philosophy and evolution as a scientific study in biology.
As I stated before, there is an actual experiment, think that the experiment is called Planet Earth or something like that, that only produced one celled organisms. I agree that Creation should be taught in other classes, but I also agree that Evolution should not be taught in Science classes as fact. There are certain parts of Evolution that have not been proven, so it should not be taught as a fact. In my science class, at a public school, we were taught both. Granted, Creation only took about an hour, but it was still taught.
You cant test God, but you can test what he made. DNA, irreducible complexity, fine-tuning of physics and constants, and consciousness are all some things you can test that point to a creator. And its impossible for like to appear spontaneously.
The fossil record isnt that good of evidence for evolution because compared to billions of years of evolution they have next to no fossils. And the ones they do have are easily explained. The cambrian explosion turns darwins tree upside down.
Bacteria becoming resistant is only micro-evolution.
Evolving robots programmed by intelligence is hardly a test that proves evolution.
The fossil record isnt that good of evidence for evolution because compared to billions of years of evolution they have next to no fossils. And the ones they do have are easily explained. The cambrian explosion turns darwins tree upside down.
Bacteria becoming resistant is only micro-evolution.
Evolving robots programmed by intelligence is hardly a test that proves evolution.
Evolution Should be taught in science classes, as it currently is a Scientific theory undergoing the scientific process. Anybody studying Biology will see the actual study process in action. Forget the unexplained parts of the theory...it's taught in a Science classroom because it uses Science. Science classes teach ideas, theories and laws that have data to support their claims. It's not a law yet, but anything taught as 'fact' in the science classroom comes with a testable pattern to arrive at the said fact. Saying that Evolution shouldn't be taught in science class in that fashion is equatable to saying that Gravity shouldn't be taught in Physics since it itself is still a theory.
And JamDude...please try not to add anything here. You've already done yourself a great disservice by proving that you are only spouting whatever you read off of creationist and ID websites, and continued to do it for 50 pages while the rest of us asked you to give us information that you have thought of yourself or didn't retrieve off of said biased websites.
And JamDude...please try not to add anything here. You've already done yourself a great disservice by proving that you are only spouting whatever you read off of creationist and ID websites, and continued to do it for 50 pages while the rest of us asked you to give us information that you have thought of yourself or didn't retrieve off of said biased websites.
Thus the point that if you conjure up assumptions that the supernatural exist, you're an ignorant, psychotic fool. To claim that one existence of such an entity is either with or without absence is to be in the wrong. The religious like to frollic about and shpeel about how the "architecture of all that is" is so perfect and genius that it "it would be crazy to think something [b]didn't construct all of this"! In actuality, this is a fine example of all that is illogical, irrational, unreasonable, and ludicrous. Truth of the matter is that all we have to show face for is observation, and as societal advancement has been made over the course of history, I would think settling for that which is thoroughly logical, rational, and reasonable to be the most suited of choices.
Marco,Marconius wrote:
I beg to differ with you on the ability to Test evolution. Tests have already been carried out using bacteria as test cases for evolution. The lifespan and reproduction of bacteria is extremely fast, and therefore can be observed a lot easier than a more complex organism, such as a human. Observed genetic mutations, such as bacteria and virii gaining drug resistance via positive mutation and universal adaptation to pressure are direct indicators of an evolutionary process. Bacterial resistance = direct evolution. Read about it here.
The fact of the matter is you CAN test for evolution, which is why it is still a theory. It's working it's way down the Scientific Process, and is utilizing scientific methods to come about its answers, facts, and data. You Cannot test for a "Creator" or god without succumbing to your own belief and faith, and that directly rules out any formation of a Scientific Process, as results of Faith are ENTIRELY subjective. Once again, they can both be taught, but creationism as a philosophy and evolution as a scientific study in biology.
Good comments but I think just about everything we humans do is testing for a Creator! Both science and religion are compelling human drives to understand who we are and why we are here. While tests may sustain a petry dish view of Evolution they do not disprove a Creator, they perhaps only disprove our modern literall interpretation of the book of Genesis in the Old Testament. For a scientific mind to claim that something needs to be proven to exists is foolish. The scientist must prove his claim whatever it is and "proving" one thing does not rule out something else unless it has also been verified. When science attempts to read ancient text literally they fail the first litmus test which is to take everything in context (or, if you prefer, account for all variables). Evolution provable only as far as we understand Time and so far as the 1st moment of existence at this point only a Creator can know for sure. Science still only has a belief system (called "assumptions") about the big bang theory.
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-06-01 08:47:29)
People who test for evolution don't have the "disproving creator" thought at the forefront of what they are studying. They are just testing for evolution. Science is establishing "How we are here" and not "Why we are here." Asking "Why?" is philosophical. In a mindset based around "How," everything needs to be proven or else none of it stands up to reason. If one scientist can prove something, the only way it is accepted within the scientific community is if other scientists in the same field can independently reproduce the results of the first scientist. Stopping all the questioning in favor of just giving up and saying that a creator produced it all is, in my opinion, very foolish itself.
Once again, Evolution ISN'T set out to disprove a creator or remove religion from society. It is an observed process that is currently being tested to see the gradual changes in flora and fauna over time. It is determining HOW bacteria can adapt to antibiotics, how giraffes developed long necks, how trees can develop tannin if they detect warning pheromones from other trees that their fruit is being eaten.
The point is it's an active discovery process which doesn't rely on a basis of faith, which creationism IS based on. Creationism is trying to establish Why we are here, using an unexplainable and untestable source as the all around answer, and therefore only produces subjective postulation which is not science.
Once again, Evolution ISN'T set out to disprove a creator or remove religion from society. It is an observed process that is currently being tested to see the gradual changes in flora and fauna over time. It is determining HOW bacteria can adapt to antibiotics, how giraffes developed long necks, how trees can develop tannin if they detect warning pheromones from other trees that their fruit is being eaten.
The point is it's an active discovery process which doesn't rely on a basis of faith, which creationism IS based on. Creationism is trying to establish Why we are here, using an unexplainable and untestable source as the all around answer, and therefore only produces subjective postulation which is not science.
People just need to sit for a moment of contemplation over the likelihood that all of their beliefs are merely the poetic outcroppings of early laureates. Writers have been around ever since written language has been adopted, and during warring times, many often would have thought of the feeling present when a moral (in)justice has been made. Without much scientific progress being disseminated throughout society in the largescale, it is reasonable to surmise that some would be searching for the origin of such experiences (thus the references to neighbors, ["intimate"] relationships, etc). In the Arab region, stories telling of the ethical misgivings made against a victimized people and their lack or overexertion of response during embattled periods would have also made the cut in such a work. Although my description demarks that of the Quran, such episodes have always been prevalent throughout stages of human civilization. Such a tool would be keenly precise in the unification of a people, and would so greatly assist ones particular cause.
The moment anyone here argues that evolution is a theory and not fact, they make themselves look like fools. It is an indisputable fact that evolution happens and did happen before. Humans have not proved evolution occured on a massive scale for the creation of earth, mostly because evolution is a relatively new idea (last 100 years or so). Scientists can show how certain species evolve, including bacteria in a short time frame. Scientists can't show how the earth evolved from early days, mostly because not enough information has been proven, but also because it is such a massive time scale. It would be naive to think that scientists, studying evolution and the theory of the beginning of our universe, could create experiments to mimic 15+/- billion years of development in a little over 100 years of real study on the subject. However, there have been tests to replicate the what we think early earth was like, and in those tests, basic building blocks for life were created. Not single cell organisms, but amino acids. These tests were to show not that life was created out of a single experiment or chance, but to show that constant change and mutations were happening at an incredible rate and to show that life could very well have been created in a primordial tide pool. We are still a long way from proving 100% that life was created out of primordial elemental soup, but we have shown the basic steps for how life was created. Most likely we will not be able to prove evolution on a universal scale in any of our lifetimes, but it is only a matter of time before we know enough about this Earth to show that life was created by chance, by constant interaction and mutation, not by a "big guy in the sky."
So evolution is an indisputable fact, but it cant be proven. Those tests that created amino acids werent in the real conditions of early earth and were still VERY far away from creating any life.
Read what I wrote my friend. We can and do prove evolution as fact all the time. We haven't yet recreated experiments for the evolution of the universe over a massive time frame because it is not feasible to do yet. It is only a matter of time. If you need help understanding what I wrote, let me know, and I will attempt to make it easier to understand. If you just read what you want to read and not everything, take a class in comprehension. Thanks!JaMDuDe wrote:
So evolution is an indisputable fact, but it cant be proven. Those tests that created amino acids werent in the real conditions of early earth and were still VERY far away from creating any life.
P.S. - Can you tell me what the "real" conditions of early earth were? And is early Earth 6000 years ago?
What school do you go to? Just curious. . .dubbs wrote:
Not trying to argue with you, but software can be programmed to "react" in anyway that you want it to.Marconius wrote:
I beg to differ with you on the ability to Test evolution. Tests have already been carried out using bacteria as test cases for evolution. The lifespan and reproduction of bacteria is extremely fast, and therefore can be observed a lot easier than a more complex organism, such as a human. Observed genetic mutations, such as bacteria and virii gaining drug resistance via positive mutation and universal adaptation to pressure are direct indicators of an evolutionary process. Bacterial resistance = direct evolution. Read about it here.
The fact of the matter is you CAN test for evolution, which is why it is still a theory. It's working it's way down the Scientific Process, and is utilizing scientific methods to come about its answers, facts, and data. You Cannot test for a "Creator" or god without succumbing to your own belief and faith, and that directly rules out any formation of a Scientific Process, as results of Faith are ENTIRELY subjective. Once again, they can both be taught, but creationism as a philosophy and evolution as a scientific study in biology.
As I stated before, there is an actual experiment, think that the experiment is called Planet Earth or something like that, that only produced one celled organisms. I agree that Creation should be taught in other classes, but I also agree that Evolution should not be taught in Science classes as fact. There are certain parts of Evolution that have not been proven, so it should not be taught as a fact. In my science class, at a public school, we were taught both. Granted, Creation only took about an hour, but it was still taught.
So only some parts of evolution on earth are fact? You cant say evolution in general if fact if right next to it you say some parts of it arent.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Read what I wrote my friend. We can and do prove evolution as fact all the time. We haven't yet recreated experiments for the evolution of the universe over a massive time frame because it is not feasible to do yet. It is only a matter of time. If you need help understanding what I wrote, let me know, and I will attempt to make it easier to understand. If you just read what you want to read and not everything, take a class in comprehension. Thanks!JaMDuDe wrote:
So evolution is an indisputable fact, but it cant be proven. Those tests that created amino acids werent in the real conditions of early earth and were still VERY far away from creating any life.
P.S. - Can you tell me what the "real" conditions of early earth were? And is early Earth 6000 years ago?
Ill give you a link on the soup http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh … php/id/838
And no i changed my mind ^^. In hebrew some parts of genesis could have ment that a day was actually a period of time rather than 24 hours.
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-06-01 11:09:02)
Yup. So long as every other faith is force-fed to kids at school, Christian ones should be subject to equal opportunity.Marconius wrote:
Plain and simple:
Creationism can be taught in a school as a section in a philosophy curriculum. It cannot exist in a science curriculum as it does not fall within science's parameters, and effectively uses no science nor the Full scientific method to explain its position. As a philosophy, it stands out and can be taught alongside the ideas of creation based on Greek and Roman gods, based on Buddhist creation, and based on how many worlds are balanced on the back of the Great Turtle Gan and Tak the destroyer.
Erm... So Evolution is hilarious eh?TechGuy wrote:
I'll tell you what's hilarious: Evolutionism. I can't believe they teach that anywhere. If not Creationism, it would be better to have Intelligent Design taught or almost anything besides Evolutionism.
As for me, I'm a Creationist of course, because I'm a Christian.
You know what else is hilarious? People coming to a 99% atheist forum and picking on Christians and their beliefs.
Examples:
The cold/flu virus EVOLVES year on year, thats why it kills so many people and we can't stop it.
Many viruses are becoming immune to antibiotics because they are EVOLVING.
The simple cell life on this planet EVOLVES quickly, the only reason they can't show complex cell lifeforms EVOLVING is that it just takes longer.
An interesting article in the BBC news today : A cave cut off from its surroundings for a MILLION years or more had some unique creatures living in there. Only found in this one place... WHY? ...Because they EVOLVED to suit their surroundings.
How much more proof do people need. Its all around you. African people - tall and dark skinned because they evolved in a hot climate. Northern European people, shorter, more body hair and body fat content, they adapted (evolved) into a colder climate.
BTW, note the "Million years" for that BBC story. The earth is over 4 billion years old, not 5000 !!
As for teaching ID, do you advocate teaching the creationist stories of ALL religions or just "your view". And if all, where do you stop, if you taught every variation of every religion's ID views, then the kids would never have time to learn maths, Languages, History etc.
You are entitled to your own views on things, just keep them as that - your views. I know that science does not have all the answers yet, but we know more now than we did yesterday, and more than the day before. The ID advocates would have us stop dead 2000 years or more ago. And btw, stop dead on the interpretations of a bunch of people on what they thought at the time, based on their need to maintain power over the huddled masses.
Final note : I suspect you would ask people not to read the DaVinci Code just because it has the audacity to question......... Its just a (badly written) novel, that questions another (badly written) novel.
Evolution as it relates to life on earth as it is now is fact. We can prove that species evolve and have been evolving for thousands of years. We cannot prove the construction of life billions of years ago. We can make educated observations and hypothesize on these, which is what the Oparin-Haldane experiment attempted to do. Realize that these experiments were done over 30 years ago, and much has changed since then in regards to the science behind life construction. Evolution occurs and has been occuring. That is a fact. What is not a fact is how life was created to begin with. There are many theories, one of which I stated earlier. This seems the most reasonable in my eyes, but has not been proven without a doubt.JaMDuDe wrote:
So only some parts of evolution on earth are fact? You cant say evolution in general if fact if right next to it you say some parts of it arent.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Read what I wrote my friend. We can and do prove evolution as fact all the time. We haven't yet recreated experiments for the evolution of the universe over a massive time frame because it is not feasible to do yet. It is only a matter of time. If you need help understanding what I wrote, let me know, and I will attempt to make it easier to understand. If you just read what you want to read and not everything, take a class in comprehension. Thanks!JaMDuDe wrote:
So evolution is an indisputable fact, but it cant be proven. Those tests that created amino acids werent in the real conditions of early earth and were still VERY far away from creating any life.
P.S. - Can you tell me what the "real" conditions of early earth were? And is early Earth 6000 years ago?
Ill give you a link on the soup http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh … php/id/838
And no i changed my mind ^^. In hebrew some parts of genesis could have ment that a day was actually a period of time rather than 24 hours.
Also, I like how you dismiss the experiments by saying, "Those tests that created amino acids werent in the real conditions of early earth." How do you know the conditions of early earth? We (humankind) have some sort of idea what the Earth was made of and looked like billions of years ago, but scientists are still not 100% sure. How would you know?