If the Jews are right or the Muslims are right, you're going to hell... also yeti, if people debate because they are inwardly concerned their views are incorrect, perhaps that is why you are here. You doubt the existence of god maybe?

Maybe people are inwardly concerned about the possibility of God actually being real. If you've lived your life with the premise that he's not real and he is.....you may not be prepared for eternity. IMO

They aren't threatened by God, per se, they are threatened by the notion that there are people out there who think that everyone should believe in what they believe, no ifs ands or buts. They are threatened by what they view is Christian propaganda, which they believe gradually erodes the fine line of the separation of Church and state, something that many of us hold dear.

They aren't going out of their way, danielost. Many of them have legitimate claims. Most often all an atheist wants, with regards to the religious, is to be left alone, and many of the religious seem to think it necessary to go out of their way to bother atheists. I would know. I remember what it was like being an atheist. Not alot of people are big fans of atheists.

The Christians on this forum are on the defense... mostly? How? I've constantly had to defend my beliefs about cosmology and science from people who, no offense, I regard as severely undereducated in those subjects. They make unsubstantiated claims, which they find on B.S. propaganda websites like AiG, which have no basis in actual fact. Indeed, danielost, it wasn't the atheists who started this little "war" or whatever. It was the people who decided to push Creationism and I.D. as actual theories. Instead of facing the scrutiny of the scientific method, which they know their theories would fail, they use backhanded methods to try to get Creationism and I.D. to be taught in schools, like appealing it to government officials or boards of education. They cry boo hoo that their theories aren't taught in school, WHEN THEY RIGHTFULLY SHOULDNT. First of all, it violates the separation of Church/State clause, second of all they aren't theories. They're just ideas. I.D. sounds like it belongs in a philosophy classroom, and creationism should be taught in a world religions class. Neither should be taught in a science class.

Both are beliefs. So tell me why should your belief(read religion) be forced down my throat.

First of all, evolution is as much a theory as creationism and can be proven as easily or I should say the spontanious start of life.

Maybe people are inwardly concerned about the possibility of God actually being real. If you've lived your life with the premise that he's not real and he is.....you may not be prepared for eternity. IMO

and yet Jesus says - Judge not lest ye be judged <--so when a christian does this and condems and judges, they are going against what Jesus has taught

I agree with this mostly.

NO ONE's belief should be forced down your throat....thats disrepecting you by attempting to do so...

Wise move LOL only because it is true, that's what your bible does state

But evolution or biogenesis as it is now being called is being taught in school, and creationism cannot be taught in school because one is belief and the other is not.


Neither can be proved by science.

I know why do you think I agreed so quickly with it. would have faster but I had to go to the doctors.

But evolution or biogenesis as it is now being called is being taught in school, and creationism cannot be taught in school because one is belief and the other is not.


Neither can be proved by science.

But evolution or biogenesis as it is now being called is being taught in school, and creationism cannot be taught in school because one is belief and the other is not.


Neither can be proved by science.

But evolution or biogenesis as it is now being called is being taught in school, and creationism cannot be taught in school because one is belief and the other is not.


Neither can be proved by science.

In my opinion the proper approach to the Intelligent Design (ID) vs neo-Darwinian debate is to present the data and allow students to debate and draw their own conclusions. Students have brains. They do not need pre-digested conclusions. Those data would include vastly more information than the usual unending speculations of how a fish may or may not have become (evolved into) a frog. There are no absolute answers for this. Only highly charged opinions as to how to interpret the data.

Evolution is the change in alelle frequencies over time. Abiogenesis is the formation of life. They are two completely different things.

Evolution is absolute, uncontested fact.

Creationism is religious bull unsupported by any evidence.

Ok where is the evidence for biogenesis.

evolution has been proven...those that tell you it hasnt..are those that think for some reason, it disproves God..but see it doesn't disprove God at all

and in my part of the world - creation is still taught in 99% of the school LOL

But evolution or biogenesis as it is now being called is being taught in school, and creationism cannot be taught in school because one is belief and the other is not.

Neither can be proved by science.

ok just everybody who didn't get it the first 20 times.

Then you FAIL at understanding what ID is. I do not think it is science but it is not what you just claimed it was either.

The topic got sidetracked and so far no one has answered the simple question: Why do some people try to disprove God when they claim He is imaginary? That question in its purity has nothing to do with the people that follow God. It is doubtful anyone who disbelieves God will be able to self analyze themselves and actually be able to answer it much less even address the question. Simply put they will deny it or just ignore it.

Intelligent design uses the cop-out (IMO) that whatever is not understood must be god. This does not belong in a science class. Give the students the facts from science and leave the mystical crap out of the science classes. I do not have anything against religion or belief in god, but I do have a problem with it being taught in schools. That is for family and outside of school activities, or a philosophy class but certainly not a biology class.

I hate to use wiki again, but this is very detailed on ID and also talks about the god/gap argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".

Then abiogenesis must be left out of school too for the same reason as creationism.

Then abiogenesis must be left out of school too for the same reason as creationism.

I add my voice to the chorus. Evolution has been proven by science. Danielost- evolution is a beautiful expression of Eternal Balance. There is no conflict between believing in evolution and believing in God. Evolution is the technique God used to express Him/Herself in the world. God can express Him/Herself via the majesty of science. Harry Potter does things by the "poof!" method. Wave the magic wand and something happens. God's work is more complex, grander and more perfect in its logic. God's work is expressed in science!

Intelligent design uses the cop-out (IMO) that whatever is not understood must be god.

Ok - how did I fail when this is what I said it was, non-scientific and based on the concept that god is involved. this would lead to religion/belief in god being taught in school.

"The aim of liberal education is to create persons who have the ability and the disposition to try to reach agreements on matters of fact, theory, and actions through rational discussions."

Today, the Church's retaliation, the war against Science, is waging in earnest. They are very much aware that they are fighting a losing battle and that this is their last big push before Science renders their God as irrelevant.

The belief that natural selection can't possibly be a directed process is an example of how fundies misunderstand evolution. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that says God doesn't exist. "God" answers the questions of "who? and why?" "Evolution" answers the question "how".

What? No it shouldn't. While abiogenesis is not 100% certain, we do have plenty of evidence that shows that abiogenesis is likely what happened. Under the correct circumstances, abiogenesis could have occurred. Its scientifically testable, unlike creationism.

1 proof


2 no it isn't we have never been able to get life from non-life under the right conditions.

I agree with that! If you want to put god into the who and why that is up to you, but a school should not be putting the god into the how and why's for folks. That is up to the individual. I am not arguing against belief in god in any way, just the teaching of that belief in a school science class. But I got off topic again!! Sorry!!!!

Science can only enhance my belief in God not prove it as irrelevant. I am sure many others including some scientist would agree.

Its supported by scientific evidence. We're pretty damned close to getting life from non-life, and while we haven't yet, the lab tests that have shown it technically is possible for abiogenesis to have occurred, thus making it one of the best scientific theories to date on the origins of life. In the science room its pretty much either abiogenesis or panspermia, and as far as I'm concerned both are equally as likely to have happened.

Even if and when Abiogenesis is proven? Even when it becomes abundantly clear that our Genetic makeup is not even close to something that a real designer would do? Even when we discover that the creation of the Universe is due to the inherent nature of matter?

At what point does an invisible mythical being that had nothing to do with the creation of anything become irrelevant?

QUOTE
"The aim of liberal education is to create persons who have the ability and the disposition to try to reach agreements on matters of fact, theory, and actions through rational discussions."

==================================================================


I disagree with this statement completely. The aim of liberal education is to do away with any and all debate.

We haven't and we won't because we are missing one important ingredient. Do you know what that is?

No your not off topic keep going.

::much shaking of the head::

Danielost, liberal education does not mean "liberal" as in the political term. I go to a liberal arts college, and believe me, there are plenty of conservatives here too. Its not about politics. A liberal arts education is one that tries to encompass all subjects and perspectives so that you can reach your own conclusions without too much bias. My liberal arts college is not run by Nancy Pelosi (thank God), nor is it run by George Bush (double thank God).

What... God?

At what point do you say that science can't prove what you just stated that it will be able to?

Ok sorry my bad. I misread it.




close but no try again.

Nah, don't worry about it. I don't know why they call it a "liberal arts education" as opposed to just an "education". Its all about the wordiness.


Ok, I'm going to guess the "spark" of life. Am I close?