ilovefuzz.com

McSpunckle wrote:Heh. I had religion classes. They were called Science and History... and Bible.

Christian education should be illegal. : D

eh, being home schooled, i pretty much coasted through 4th, 5th and 6th grade as most of it was stuff i had already learned and then when i went to a public high school, my freshman year and part of sophomore year was pretty much refresher of what i went over in like 8th grade. a good solid percentage of my graduating class' top 25% of students came from parochial schools. i don't think i'd be half as smart as i was if it wasn't for being home schooled and parochial school up until high school, not gonna lie.

also, sorry for the thread hijack

people from either camps who debate creationism v. evolution are dumb.

catholic church has accepted it for fucking centuries (since the 1600's or so. evolution is older than you think) and any scientist worth their giblets will tell you that science can't go where creationism goes and therefore cannot disprove it.

as if science proves anything to begin with.

if you go "now wait just a minute there" you just THINK you know what science does, as opposed to what it actually does.

also trolling atheists on twitter is literally the easiest thing

I've never encountered anyone who denies evolution who actually has the faintest idea what it is or how it works.

Gearmond wrote:also trolling atheists on twitter is literally the easiest thing

I love how crazy atheists and crazy religious fundies are basically the same people, and how they're both so, so easy to troll.

Alright, I wasn't gonna post seriously in this thread, but...

From experience, it's just not true that most Christians accept evolution. And if they do, they usually accept it in a very general sorta way that totally ignores some very important scientific facts.

Gearmond wrote:people from either camps who debate creationism v. evolution are dumb.

catholic church has accepted it for fucking centuries (since the 1600's or so. evolution is older than you think) and any scientist worth their giblets will tell you that science can't go where creationism goes and therefore cannot disprove it.

as if science proves anything to begin with.

if you go "now wait just a minute there" you just THINK you know what science does, as opposed to what it actually does.

Creationism Vs Evolution is very important debate. Because of creationist I was legally denied a decent science education. When I learned what evolution really was, I was furious. And this is the case for millions of Christian school and homeschool kids around this country (and I'd assume it happens in Europe as well). I heard a lot of the "If we came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys" shit. And if you don't think people denying evolution are common, you're not paying attention.

Science disproves lots of things. Like the belief that the earth is only 6000 years old. If you don't think science can disprove the creation story, then you don't know the creation story. The only reason it's not so rigidly based on the Bible all the time is because it's been disproved, and it's the losing side of the argument. It doesn't matter what the Catholic church says (they don't really take an official position), tons of people believe that, and they teach it to their children. In 2006, only 14% of adults were totally sold on the idea of evolution in the US. I'm sure that number is higher now, but it's still a lot lower than other western countries.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

Again, just because everyone you know accepts evolution doesn't mean that's the way it works, and the denial of science is farther-reaching effects. It's directly tied to the "global warming is a hoax" and "Being gay is a choice" arguments that are so prevalent in this country. It's usually the same people making those arguments.

And I do realize that creationism and evolution aren't really theories of the same thing. Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. But the standard, non-liberalized creationist view is direction at odds with generally understood science.

And, just to clarify-- if you have liberal view of creationism, where God kinda just set everything in motion billions of years ago, that's great. I have no problem with that. I just wish I could say that's the creationism I've seen.

*edit*

It turns out about half of Americans believe in Evolution, but all but 14% believe in theistic evolution. They don't seem to specify what "god-guided evolution" means, soooo...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 826-4947r/

^Good thing your school had some sensible people in it.

I think things are very different in the UK. For one thing, no area of the country is allowed to stop teaching the theory of evolution if it wants to, or to pretend creationism is anything other than a religious idea.

It's funny, christian creationists clamour for the right to have their beliefs taught in schools, but they would probably have a fit if somebody suggested teaching the creation myths of all the other religions as well.

devnulljp wrote:I've never encountered anyone who denies evolution who actually has the faintest idea what it is or how it works.

^this so much. No physicist, biologist, anthropologist, chemist, etc. believes in creationism. because there is so much evidence that supports evolution.
Why would there be bones and whole skeletons of in-between species that are very close to other species but aren't in existance?
Also: Dinosaurs? Carbon-dating? the Earth is only 6000 Years old?


Also most people I met that strongly believe in the bible don't fucking know it or haven't even read the whole thing. How can you believe in something you haven't even read?

[/rant]

Because people don't understand the science behind things like evolution and the idea that the earth is older than 20,000 years, it's a matter of believing in science or believing in religion. This is a failing of our school system. Maybe because so many of us are raised to believe in things we don't understand, it's difficult for us to realize that science isn't about belief at all.


I sat through a presentation on "creation science" at a friend's church last year. It was painful. I wish I had stood up and said something, but at the time I was too shocked. The guy had some pseudo-scientific reasons that the earth is only 20,000 years old, reasons that are difficult for someone uneducated to answer.

One was that the Grand Canyon couldn't have been formed by a river over time, because at the top of the canyon, the water would have had to flow uphill. So therefore it must have been a flood. The idea is that a lot of things that scientists say took millions of years to happen, could have happened under the right conditions in a much shorter time. Of course no one there had the scientific knowledge to say differently, and were convinced. If it's such a good idea though, why isn't it being published in peer-reviewed science journals instead of preached to laypeople as indisputable truth?

He also tied Jesus and God into it, so that to deny creation science is to deny Christianity. So even if they weren't already convinced, better not ask questions and just accept it.

I sincerely think that the leaders of the creation science movement are evil.

fixed ideas and prejudices are the evil of this world.

i think that the problem with the whole debate is that 99% of people who accept evolution as truth have a decent grasp of the process but can't actually enter into a real debate about it because they don't know the topic as thoroughly as one needs to to argue properly. the process of evolution is pretty much undeniable - it can be seen all throughout the world both in micro and macro evolution of species. when environmental change occurs in an animal species, those better suited to living in a new environment live, and others will die, thus slightly altering the species as a whole. that's evolution, baby! i don't know anyone who would disagree with that who understood the process. and yes, even the creationists can believe this because it still fits in with their theory that 'god created everything,' and he 'created everything which could undergo evolution in response to environmental factors.'

the problem is that creationism offers a solution to the eternal problem of 'how did we get here' that evolution supposedly offers but is really murky on. you think about richard dawkins and his analogy of atoms and molecules just floating about in the primordial sea when one of them just decided to be a 'replicator,' thus life was born and things got infintely more complex when this happened a lot, molecules in the primordial sea changed, dna was formed and from thereon cells formed... then complex cells... you can see from this analogy where we cam from which is pretty fucking mindblowing. i can sort of grasp how this theory could have happened over the course of billions of years resulting in us. [insert survival of fittest, etc].

this whole 'where did the first replicator come from' question is one that is of the utmost importance, and i guarantee that most college graduates out there championing the cause and arguing this don't really know this part (i'm sorry, but the amount of times i've read this on forums people just argue the process, not the origin and it turns out to be so stupid). i did a semester of studying darwinsm as part of my science degree and we were asked to do a large survey. we were told to go to students in the science faculty and ask them to prove creationism wrong with scientific logic and at to try and be compelling. most students were able backtrack to the point where one cell became two cells, but any further than that? my response of 'oh well god just did it then, can you prove me wrong?' just got them in a fluster and they told me i was a fucking idiot fundie. this is the most important part!

did you know that the one of the main theory purports that it was ionizing radiation that merged two random assortments of atoms into a form which could replicate? neither did i, but i mean this is the sort of stuff that is important to the origin of life. evolution gets us only to the point where survival of the fittest starts, and not much before then. this is why i think the evolutionist vs creationism debate is retarded. creationists always have the answer, and we need to keep on trying to work out and possibly recreate how the first replicator (or whatever you want to call it) came about because from thereon, it's all good in the hood theory-wise. the big bang gets us to a point where this can all happen, primordial sea etc etc... but that spark of life eludes science as we can't even yet classify what life is, let alone how it started. when we know that, creationism is dead in the water and we can all laugh at them, until then however! they've got an answer (despite it being stupid) and we do not.

[note] i'm sorry about this post, i just re-read it and it's long and rather preachy in favour of evolutionists (which i am one of). please don't flame me back to the dark age, i just wanted to share what was on my mind. if i come across as elitist i apologise.

Good point, but I'm not really sure if creationists have a better answer.

Of course, evolution isn't a theory of the beginning of the world. The reason the argument is creationism vs. evolution is that general, conservative (as in, based on the Bible) creationism states that God made the animals much like they are now, including humans and dinosaurs, all at the same time. Young-earth creationism. Now, long-earth creationism, that's another story, but they don't really have a concrete answer. People that follow science will generally tell you (at least if they're smart) that they don't know how it all started. We have the Big Bang, but what started that is a mystery, and one that science continues to investigate. Creationists replace this uncertainty with "Duh! God did it!" without any real evidence to support it.

If I were to say "Clearly the universe was shat out by a magic, eternal unicorn", that would be just as valid.

alexa. wrote:fixed ideas and prejudices are the evil of this world.

So right on.

I just can't believe that people can't see evolution as a direct extension to the big bang. It was particles then, it's meatbags now, and it's all evolving further. As plants and lower animal life was there to support us, in the same way we support AI (which is a logical extension of the natural evolution process if you think about it).
The only thing I would do is an evolving universe theory, rather than a theory that is just limited to organic forms of life.

And the real question isn't "Why are we here?" but, "Why am I here?".
To see this from a perspective of a universe that is evolving would mean: "What can I do to further and enrich the universe? How can I be a part of the evolution spike?"
There are mistakes to evolution (no doubt about it), but they fade through time when they are not needed. Energy is always used in the best optimal way anyway.
And this is just a glimpse of the beauty the universe is.

So why limit yourself with human stuff when you can be so much more? When you can further not only yourself, but all life..
Human life is short and beautiful. Never forget to smell the flowers, enjoy the sky or to listen to the birds. Experience is what artist take in, art is what comes out.
The wonder of creation is right in front of us, around us, and us as well : D
We are powerful, beautiful, extraordinary.

<3