ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: The so-called athiest "zealots" you are referring to are different, because we aren't trying to force anything upon anyone. We just don't want an unproven, scientific theory imposed on anyone, like teaching intelligent design would do.

What? What is the Big Bang Theory? Proven fact?

No, but it has way more evidence, years of scientific exploration and theories to support it than intelligent design.

It is an unproven, scientific theory, imposed upon everyone. And aside from the fact that it is impossible according to the laws of physics, the 'evidence' supporting it is hardly infallible.

Cleveland Buck wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: The so-called athiest "zealots" you are referring to are different, because we aren't trying to force anything upon anyone. We just don't want an unproven, scientific theory imposed on anyone, like teaching intelligent design would do.

What? What is the Big Bang Theory? Proven fact?

No, but it has way more evidence, years of scientific exploration and theories to support it than intelligent design.

It is an unproven, scientific theory, imposed upon everyone. And aside from the fact that it is impossible according to the laws of physics, the 'evidence' supporting it is hardly infallible.

Anyone who has any scientific credibility does not say the theory is absolute fact. They just suggest that the overall amount of evidence collected throughout the history of Astronomy suggests that the Big Bang theory is the most plausible explanation of the creation of the universe. Again, sit in on a class of Astronomy as you will see the scientific evidence.

Now, what created the Big Bang is a totally different question, as that is still very much speculation and quantum physics.

Again, I subscribe to the Big Bang, but also acknowledge that it could have been created by a higher power.

bigmanbt wrote: The so-called athiest "zealots" you are referring to are different, because we aren't trying to force anything upon anyone. We just don't want an unproven, scientific theory imposed on anyone, like teaching intelligent design would do.

As far as when it comes to religion, I don't really care whether you believe or not, and don't really care to bring it up. But when people try and tell me how I am wrong or living wrong because I don't believe in God, don't expect me to take it.

Generalize much? You are no different from those you criticize. You wear your athesism on your sleeve as a christian wears a cross about his neck.
There is plenty of room for evolution/big bang/ science and intelligent design/God to co-exist.

Ah, but thats the problem, they don't co-exist. The overwhelming vast majority of people in this country long ago decided that science would be taught in schools & colleges and we'd let the fruit that science produced better the world. ID, young earthers and the rest of that ilk of malcontents simply want to impose a psuedo-science of religious garbage on academia. School boards, school personnel, college faculty, administrstors, etc made up of the vast majority of people recognize the fraud for what it is and demand that science remain in schools without crap like ID or young earth .

The misfits and malcontents of religious fervor continue the assault on society. Such is the idiocy of the "culture wars".

^^^thank you. I rest my case. You can neither prove or disprove that origins are by design or not. The vast majority of people who believe by intuitive thought that things were created by design are happy enough to allow what can be empirically proven or empirically theorized to be taught in science classes and leave the rest to religion or philosophy provided you can control yourself enough to not insist or misrepresent as fact things you cannot prove.

That "vast majority" is a small slice of the general population. A vocal very small minority. Hence practicaly all schools and colleges reject teaching "ID".

Science triumphs over dogma.

Again, you make my case. You think because you can defeat anthropromorphic rituals and characteristics of a 'religion', (e.g. fundamental Christians) that you have invalidated the concept of 'intelligent design.' Not everyone who ascribes to an intelligent design behind the universe believes in the literal interpretation of creation by the Bible...in fact, only a segment of Christianity....a segment that doesn't even include the Catholic Church. That some people would like to mention ID in a discusssion of origins shouldn't be surprising.

"Science triumphs over dogma" reveals your own 'zealotry'... Our science ( I say 'our' in that I am somewhat of a scientist myself) deals with ...and can only deal with ...things of this universe. And hence, ultimate origins are best left for another disclipline. Science can speculate and theorize what those ultimate origins might be...but an atheistic speculation is no more valid than ID. It is quite possible. and quite probable that the vast majority of people are comfortable with evolution/big bang etc...and all that science can reveal...and still accept an intelligence behind it all. So, yes, science and God can co-exist...except in the minds of zealots on both sides.

HitsRus wrote: Again, you make my case. You think because you can defeat anthropromorphic rituals and characteristics of a 'religion', (e.g. fundamental Christians) that you have invalidated the concept of 'intelligent design.' Not everyone who ascribes to an intelligent design behind the universe believes in the literal interpretation of creation by the Bible...in fact, only a segment of Christianity....a segment that doesn't even include the Catholic Church. That some people would like to mention ID in a discusssion of origins shouldn't be surprising.

"Science triumphs over dogma" reveals your own 'zealotry'... Our science ( I say 'our' in that I am somewhat of a scientist myself) deals with ...and can only deal with ...things of this universe. And hence, ultimate origins are best left for another disclipline. Science can speculate and theorize what those ultimate origins might be...but an atheistic speculation is no more valid than ID. It is quite possible. and quite probable that the vast majority of people are comfortable with evolution/big bang etc...and all that science can reveal...and still accept an intelligence behind it all. So, yes, science and God can co-exist...except in the minds of zealots on both sides.

Not in a Science classroom they cannot and that is what the OP is all about.

If someone outside the science classroom wants to believe that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe and all the living things in it so be it but not in a SCIENCE classroom because SCIENCE is taught in SCIENCE class not philosophical concepts.

ID is NOT a SCIENTIFIC theory.

ID needs to be taught in a religious class.

^^^If you refer to my original post (#10) on this thread, you will see that i agree with you. However, that is not where this thread is 157 posts later.

The point is, you can follow science all the way back to the ultimate origin of OUR universe and the idea that something arose from nothing is no more valid than the concept of a 'flying spaghetti monster'.

bigmanbt wrote: The so-called athiest "zealots" you are referring to are different, because we aren't trying to force anything upon anyone. We just don't want an unproven, scientific theory imposed on anyone, like teaching intelligent design would do.
As far as when it comes to religion, I don't really care whether you believe or not, and don't really care to bring it up. But when people try and tell me how I am wrong or living wrong because I don't believe in God, don't expect me to take it.

I beg to differ.

There has yet to be one thread that has anything to do with spiritual/Christian beliefs where there are not droves of non-believers/athiests butting in and trying to pound in their facts that all believers are wrong.

MOST of the people who have any sort of spiritual beliefs are quite willing to explore the fact that science and faith can intertwine or co-exist. However, very few of the nonbelievers/athiests are of the same mind.

Again, this very thread makes this glaringly obvious.



Zealots are zealots, it doesn't matter which side they stand on. In this case, they are on both sides; this is proven by the very simple fact that there is any discussion on this thread (and all the others) at all.

Heres the facts --

ID is NOT taught in colleges or schools ( nor young earth)

Science is taught in colleges & schools

Time and again, a small group of zealots try to muscle ID or young earth into the "science" curriculum.

Time & again, the general population reject such attempts. Does that make the general population "zealots" ??

Science belongs in the schools

ID/young earth is religious based & belongs in church.

Yet, the zealots persist with the culture wars

:huh: Who doesn't get it ?

Paladin wrote: Heres the facts --

ID is NOT taught in colleges or schools ( nor young earth)

Science is taught in colleges & schools

Time and again, a small group of zealots try to muscle ID or young earth into the "science" curriculum.

Time & again, the general population reject such attempts. Does that make the general population "zealots" ??

Science belongs in the schools

ID/young earth is religious based & belongs in church.

Yet, the zealots persist with the culture wars

:huh: Who doesn't get it ?

One of the problems faced in this argument is that those who would have ID in classrooms see it as a "ID vs. Evolution" dichotomy.

It's not.

Those two things, themselves, are not even mutually exclusive, let along diametrically opposed.

Another problem is that those at the other end of the spectrum often see it as a "science vs. ID" dichotomy.

This is also not it.

These are not mutually exclusive, either, let alone diametrically opposed.

Here is how I wish it would run in a classroom ... purely because this is what seems to make the most sense to me:

* No origins theory are spoken of as even probabilities. We still know far too little regarding origins science to make any weighted assertion within the realm of science. Thus, any origins theories may be discussed in SCHOOL ... just not in the science classrooms. This includes all possible theories: Intelligent Design, Miller-Urey model, "primordial soup," aliens, growth on crystals, etc.

* Micro-evolution ... the observation of species adapting over time to cope with their environments based on physiological advantages (aka survival of the fittest) ... is taught as absolute fact. This is indisputable. We have been able to observe it.

* Macro-evolution ... the notion that micro-evolution combined with advantageous mutations eventually form entirely new species which are no longer able to reproduce with the previous species ... should be taught as the most likely possibility conceived to date. What I mean is that it ought to be taught as more than just a possibility, but less than a matter of fact. From what we have observed, it is the only possibility currently conceived that is based entirely on scientific theories (that is, theoretically requiring nothing outside the bounds of natural law).

The only issue I have with the latter being taught with the same conviction as gravitational law/theory is that it presupposes, without true logical cause, the priority of scientific postulation over non-scientific postulation. Essentially, it presupposes the sciences to be a "trump card" over any other philosophy for our existence ... and there is currently no defense given for such a position that does not require some level of circular reasoning, which as we know, is a logical fallacy.

Sorry. Not buying it and neither is the public. Most have seen what these zealots are all about. We are talking education vs religion. One is based on facts and good scientific evidence,strong probablities and possibilities. The other is based on a "faith", a belief in the supernatural. We didn't get to the moon & back, wipe out diseases and develope high technology based on "faith". It was done with solid science taught in classrooms in schools & colleges. ID belongs in Sunday school. There isn't any good reason for teaching ID in school unless you make it a philosophy class, not along side of science. What is really at work here is the continuing efforts to promote christian religion -- not jewish, muslim, etc, but the christian religion and all its dogma. And basing it on biblical text.......... notice no one is talking using the koran or torah. ID/Young earthers are christian zealots, pure & simple. Its alien to them to discuss the possibility of a god without it being the christian god and all its teachings. The rest of us don't care what the zealots teach their kids in Sunday school, where matters of faith belong. But they know that the supernatural fades vs science and that science disproves the bible and its stories. People may have no problem believing in a god and evolution and the tenets of science but the zealots aren't happy with that because its minimizes the christian religion........................ the real basis of the manipulations of their fraud. Fundamentalists are especially touchy about this because of the "literal" belief in a bible..... a book written by many men over hundereds of years after "Jesus" and manipulated by the churches to fit their "scheme" of things. And with the men who wrote the bible coming from the Mid-East hotbed of religious fanatics, its not hard to look at the crazies there now and imagine what it was back then when these "holy men" were writing the books of the bible.

The public in general gets it. Thats why science is taught in the classrooms and religion is taught in Sunday school.

Paladin wrote: Sorry. Not buying it and neither is the public.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I don't have a whole lot of faith in tthe general public. The average American's ability to think critically and independently is a sad testament to our education system's inability to teach its students HOW to think instead of teaching them WHAT to think.

Also, using the majority view as a point in any logical syllogism is fallacious (Appeal to Common Practice, I believe).

I'm not sure if this statement is referring to my post above, and if it is, I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. I'm in support of leaving ID out of the science room as much as anyone.

Paladin wrote:Most have seen what these zealots are all about. We are talking education vs religion.

Incorrect. Education and religion are not mutually exclusive. This would be a logical fallacy known as a 'false dichotomy', for which numerous defeaters can easily be raised.

Paladin wrote:One is based on facts and good scientific evidence,strong probablities and possibilities.

Education is too broad to suggest that it is based on "fact." If you're referring specifically to scientific education, then I would contend that it is supposed to be based on facts, given certain assumptions, anyway.

Scientific evidence is fantastic, given our blind presupposition that it holds true (to be fair, this is a blind presupposition that I, myself, hold to be accurate), because it allows us to explore our world in terms we can study.

Strong probabilities is honestly where I put macro-evolutionary theory. I think it probably happened. However, based on the evidence presented by scientists (real ones ... not Ken Ham and his ilk) and said evidence's interaction with questions and skeptical issues raise against it (potential defeaters), it is absolutely not beyond doubt that it could be errant.

Paladin wrote:The other is based on a "faith", a belief in the supernatural.

Not really. Intelligent Design, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, can actually be adopted by the nonreligious ... even the Nietzsche-like atheist. I won't rehash that here, but you're welcome to look it up.

It's based on the existence of potential defeaters raised in light of theories of abiogenesis. Intelligent Design is not the antithesis of evolution. It is the antithesis of abiogenesis.

Paladin wrote:We didn't get to the moon & back, wipe out diseases and develope high technology based on "faith".

Not sure what you are attempting to show by stating this. Kinda sounds like you're trying to rally troops. I feel like some Brahms should be playing in the background as I read that.

Paladin wrote:It was done with solid science taught in classrooms in schools & colleges.

Indeed. I don't think any of the scientific processes, studies, or discoveries used in aforementioned breakthroughs are under fire. Am I wrong in that thought?

Paladin wrote:ID belongs in Sunday school. There isn't any good reason for teaching ID in school unless you make it a philosophy class, not along side of science.

I hope this isn't a response to me, because it would be redundant. It's exactly what I said.

Paladin wrote:What is really at work here is the continuing efforts to promote christian religion -- not jewish, muslim, etc, but the christian religion and all its dogma.

Based on what? ID asserts a supreme creative force. That's all. Period. As I said, such a force could have died millions of years ago, after said creation, for all it matters to the theory of ID. You're not just taking assumptive leaps ... you're taking assuptive longjumps.

Paladin wrote:And basing it on biblical text..........

I'll be the first to say that the Bible is not a relevant document in a science classroom. Where on earth would I have said otherwise in my post?

Paladin wrote:notice no one is talking using the koran or torah.

Given that it seems like you're responding to me, I didn't mention ANY texts at all.

Paladin wrote:ID/Young earthers are christian zealots, pure & simple.

You sound like my wife's deceased grandfather: "Those negros are gang bangers, pure and simple."

Regardless of what you're trying to assert as truth, it is FAR from that simple. Hell, I don't even WANT ID in the science classroom (something I THOUGHT I'd made exhaustively clear in my last post), and I can even see that.

Paladin wrote:Its alien to them to discuss the possibility of a god without it being the christian god and all its teachings.

Ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Paladin wrote:The rest of us don't care what the zealots teach their kids in Sunday school, where matters of faith belong. But they know that the supernatural fades vs science and that science disproves the bible and its stories.

Not that this is the thread for such a discussion, but you are incorrect. You saying that a Christian "knows that the supernatural fades vs science" is equivalent to a Christian saying you "know that God exists, whether or not you'll admit it."

Paladin wrote:People may have no problem believing in a god and evolution and the tenets of science but the zealots aren't happy with that because its minimizes the christian religion........................

The group to which you are referring is not even the Christian zealot group. Most Christians would consider themselves zealots (that is, that their Christianity is their prime identity, and their loyalty to living a Christian life trumps everything else). I suppose I consider myself such a zealot, or at least, I'd like to. The group you're describing are those with theocratic tendencies.

Paladin wrote:Fundamentalists are especially touchy about this because of the "literal" belief in a bible..... a book written by many men over hundereds of years after "Jesus" and manipulated by the churches to fit their "scheme" of things.

You sound like Dan Brown. Having studied Christian history, I can tell you that Dan took several enormous leaps, and was even flat-out incorrect in many aspects of his story, entertaining though it was.

Also, the term "Fundamentalist" is not synonymous with "Biblical Literalist," though overlap exists.

Paladin wrote:And with the men who wrote the bible coming from the Mid-East hotbed of religious fanatics, its not hard to look at the crazies there now and imagine what it was back then when these "holy men" were writing the books of the bible.

Most of the men that wrote biblical texts post-Persian Empire were actually (a) not considered holy authorities by their contemporaries in Coele-Syria, and (b) were LARGELY influenced by Hellenistic thought ... which placed considerable importance on reason.

Paladin wrote:The public in general gets it.

This might be the scariest sentence I've ever read. I know it's a pop-culture movie from the early 2000s, but I'd suggest the quote is virtually timeless, and probably describes most cultures, and ours in particular:

"A person is smart; people are stupid."

If you want to trust the general public to determine your worldview for you, by all means, it's your choice to do so. I wouldn't stop you.

I, however, will do so for myself through critical thinking and my own observation of the world.

CenterBHSFan wrote: I would have no problem if schools decided to offer Intelligent Design as an elective in their jr. high/high schools.
To me, that kills two birds with one stone.

1. It's an elective, so any class would be completely voluntarity and not the dreaded "indoctrination" word. People can opt to skip this class and take something else like shop instead.

2. It offers more than just one way of thinking as far as theory and fact are concerned for those who want to explore new ideas, balance them out in their head, and make a decision based on their own thought process.

I always thought it went like this:

In the beginning we were all fish swimming around in the water, then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby. The retard baby was different so it got to live. So retard fish goes on to make more retard babies. Then one day a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands and had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made retard frog squirrel. Then retard frog squirrel had a retard baby that was a monkey fish frog. Then monkey fish frog has butt sex with a monkey and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and that made you. So there you go you're the retarded offspring of five monkeys that had butt sex with a fish squirrel... congrats.

goosebumps wrote: I always thought it went like this:

In the beginning we were all fish swimming around in the water, then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby. The retard baby was different so it got to live. So retard fish goes on to make more retard babies. Then one day a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands and had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made retard frog squirrel. Then retard frog squirrel had a retard baby that was a monkey fish frog. Then monkey fish frog has butt sex with a monkey and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and that made you. So there you go you're the retarded offspring of five monkeys that had butt sex with a fish squirrel... congrats.

I guffawed!

goosebumps wrote: I always thought it went like this:

In the beginning we were all fish swimming around in the water, then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby. The retard baby was different so it got to live. So retard fish goes on to make more retard babies. Then one day a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands and had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made retard frog squirrel. Then retard frog squirrel had a retard baby that was a monkey fish frog. Then monkey fish frog has butt sex with a monkey and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and that made you. So there you go you're the retarded offspring of five monkeys that had butt sex with a fish squirrel... congrats.

I cachinnated.

"Evolution is defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

Period end of story. It has been documented and recorded PERIOD. It is fact."

WELL, this is laughable. All the above is saying is that there is variation. Creationists would agree to that. The point that evos keep avoiding is that there's no evidence at all for new information bringing about an increase of complexity in any system. No evidence that molecules can become man. What the above quote is saying is that there can be birds with long beaks and short legs, or short beaks and long legs. It does not say or prove in any way that any bird can evolve into another creature, in fact TESTABLE OBSERVABLE SCIENCE proves it can not happen in the real world. Variations within the bounds of the genetic code is all there is.

Science has changed from what is testable and observable to 'science by consensus.'

"That guy debated on IIDB which is now FRDB and was throughly debunked. Information technology is not biology."

Perry Marshall hasn't been debunked, and those who want to find out for themselves follow the link and see what he says instead of believing the statement quoted above as being some 'authority' on the subject. Perry has been hanging out at the Infidels website (atheist website) for a long time, and no one has done anything to disprove his statement, only spew vitriol.

As to the previous poster on Sickle Cell anemia being 'proof' of evolution. Typical evolutionist claptrap. Evos continue to use deception/misinformation to confuse the public about their RELIGIOUS bias.

The World Authority on Sickle Cell anemia says sickle cell anemia is no evidence of evolution:

http://creation.com/sickle-cell-anemia-does-not-prove-evolution


Sickle Cell anemia is a DEFECT. Evos try to claim that defects lead to higher order. Again, logic is not on their side.

From another link at Creation.com, with link to Science magazine article at the bottom:

Turning gene ‘on’ protects against malaria
We have often explained that no information-increasing mutation has been observed, but some information-losing changes can be beneficial (helpful). A well-known one is sickle-cell anemia. This mutation ruins hemoglobin so it becomes misshapen, and can’t carry oxygen as efficiently. But it also means that the malaria parasite can’t multiply in the red blood cells. So people who have both the normal and sickle-cell gene (heterozygous) have inefficient blood, but are resistant to malaria. Therefore, natural selection would keep the sickle-cell gene in the population in malarial areas. But, as we reported from a world expert in sickle-cell anemia, this is not evolution, because there is no new information (Creation 16(2):40–41, 1994).
Now, a mutation in another gene helps protect against malaria. This is in a switch that turns on the enzyme to produce nitric oxide (NO). This lowers the risk of severe malaria by 88% in Tanzania and 75% in Kenya. Though the researchers don’t know how NO works, people with this mutation are less likely to die of malaria, so they are more likely to pass on this mutation to their children. So natural selection would favour this gene in malarial areas. In non-malarial areas, there would be no need for this extra NO production, so the mutation would tend to be lost.
Science, 15 November 2002, pp. 1317–1319.
Here again, the mutation doesn’t turn on any new information, but switches on already existing information.

Again, evolutionists use natural selection to claim that evolution is 'proven' - and by that they mean that molecules to man evolution is proven true - AND IT IS NOT. In fact, the facts say 'molecules to man' evolution is impossible. Instead evo's use examples that, when scrutinized FAIL to show molecules to man evolution is possible. Evolution is not a fact, it's not even a theory. It's religion disguised as science. It's politics and power.

Some more reading to do for those who are interested in finding out some truth instead of the high religion of evolution:

http://creation.com/facilitated-variation-paradigm-emerges

Intelligent Design verified on a molecular level. Darwin is wrong again.

The above link gets into some heavy reading; the complexity of the issue itself should give one pause - to consider a designer behind it - there's no way it could happen by natural selection and mutation.

In the beginning there was information.

Life only comes from life.

BY THE WAY, there's a $1 million dollar reward waiting for anyone who can come up with a highly feasible way life could come from non-life. It's been offered since 1998. Hundreds of scientists, evolutionists, are hoping that someone can claim the prize. But - no one can show it, or even come close - the chasm between the living and non-living is incredible.

Google Origin of Life prize if you believe you can 'advise' them.

This whole battle isn't science vs religion. It's RELIGION vs RELIGION.

The evos stack the deck by defining science as naturalistic, assuming omnipotence. Bias from the beginning.

Follow the data where it leads and let the cards fall where they may instead of using circular reasoning sometime.

Life only comes from life is a prediction of Intelligent Design, and is what is observed.

That life could come from non-life is a prediction of evolution, and is not what is observed.

Creatures can change within the boundaries of their genetic code is a prediction of ID and is observed.

Creatures can change into other creatures is a prediction of evo, and not observed.

See a pattern yet? Which is more religious, and which is not.

Paladin wrote: Ah, but thats the problem, they don't co-exist. The overwhelming vast majority of people in this country long ago decided that science would be taught in schools & colleges and we'd let the fruit that science produced better the world. ID, young earthers and the rest of that ilk of malcontents simply want to impose a psuedo-science of religious garbage on academia. School boards, school personnel, college faculty, administrstors, etc made up of the vast majority of people recognize the fraud for what it is and demand that science remain in schools without crap like ID or young earth .

The misfits and malcontents of religious fervor continue the assault on society. Such is the idiocy of the "culture wars".

Wow, you couldn't put more contempt into that post if you tried...simmer down now.

If you read back through this thread, you will find that most of us that believe in a form or creation/ID are NOT advocating for it to be taught in science classes. As a scientist myself I've said "no, it shouldn't" on this thread.

So, before you get your panties in a bunch at least read the thread.

We've said it could be taught in philosophy or possibly even a scientific philosophy class, but it shouldn't be in the pure sciences.

Otrap pretty much humiliated paladin.

Sorry paladin, but read your posts, you are more "zealot" like than anyone here.

I have very similar feelings on the subject as OTrap, origins is (right now) a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.

FatHobbit wrote:

74Leps wrote:Natural selection can only choose from a subset of what is already present, mutations are copying errors. NEVER is observed a truly beneficial mutation - one that increases qualitative sophistication - NEVER.

Or would you like to provide a valid example . . .

Sickle cell anemia provides resistance to malaria. That's one mutation that is beneficial.

74Leps wrote: As to the previous poster on Sickle Cell anemia being 'proof' of evolution. Typical evolutionist claptrap. Evos continue to use deception/misinformation to confuse the public about their RELIGIOUS bias.

Nobody said sickle cell anemia is proof of evolution. You asked for an example of a beneficial mutation.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: The so-called athiest "zealots" you are referring to are different, because we aren't trying to force anything upon anyone. We just don't want an unproven, scientific theory imposed on anyone, like teaching intelligent design would do.
As far as when it comes to religion, I don't really care whether you believe or not, and don't really care to bring it up. But when people try and tell me how I am wrong or living wrong because I don't believe in God, don't expect me to take it.

I beg to differ.

There has yet to be one thread that has anything to do with spiritual/Christian beliefs where there are not droves of non-believers/athiests butting in and trying to pound in their facts that all believers are wrong.

MOST of the people who have any sort of spiritual beliefs are quite willing to explore the fact that science and faith can intertwine or co-exist. However, very few of the nonbelievers/athiests are of the same mind.

Again, this very thread makes this glaringly obvious.



Zealots are zealots, it doesn't matter which side they stand on. In this case, they are on both sides; this is proven by the very simple fact that there is any discussion on this thread (and all the others) at all.

I agree with everything you said except the part about most spiritual people being more open to science. I think we all think that we are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. IMHO neither side is better at accepting the others point of view. But I do agree that this thread makes it obvious.

By the way, jmog, I believe in macroevolution.

O-Trap wrote: By the way, jmog, I believe in macroevolution.

I know, thats why I said I agree with most of what you said .

I'm not saying its impossible, just saying its not a "fact" as its taught and I just don't happen to believe it.