Poor Kids

[directhex]

I think people only complain about others religious beliefs when they get in the way of their own (or absance of their own).

But that said, the same respect has to be given to the flying speghetti monster followers as it does to catholecisim.

So, say anything against teh FSM or draw any derogatory cartoons, we will bomb you, enough said?

[iranu]

It's all about relationship. If you made the hamsters and made them love you, what kind of relationship would that be?

Probably a bestial one.

Would you appreciate it?

Mmmmn not sure. Do I get to use sellotape or a tube?

Sorry I couldn't resist, you should have picked ants or something although i get your point. Anyway here's some hampster love.

[TheAnimus]

SKEPTIC: "It's common knowledge. You hear it all the time."
CHRISTIAN: "Just because you hear something a lot doesn't make it true. At Christmas I hear about Santa all the time, too. That doesn't make him real. What you're asking me to do is believe in evolution without providing me any evidence for doing so. I'm sorry, but I can't do that. I can't just accept what you say as true just because you say it. That would mean I would have to believe it by faith alone, and you just said that was wrong."

SKEPTIC: whilst we're both clearly morons, let me try and explain this once more, only with a little more logic, there is a great set of evidence that lends the something loosely dubbed as survival of the fittest to been so, we can see this happen fairly quickly where animals have been forced to adapt to rapid changes.

Whilst we accept there is no quick fix awnser, we can accept that evolution is a partial fit, and a much better solution than any others which have been proposed, so as such we run with it, adapt it as we learn through reason and obvservation ever more.

This is exactly the same as Newton's laws, which as it turns out don't work very well with the very very small. People leveraged them to build great dams bridges etc, until someone was able to improve them (einstin) before someone was able to unify the two even more so (hawkings) and its only time before someone else improves them even more.

However some people can't accept a complex partial awnser, knowing that the function fits some cases isn't enough, but instead of reason, they fall back on piaisc moronicisim.

[directhex]

SKEPTIC: "How can you Christians believe the book of Genesis to be true? All you are relying on is blind faith."
CHRISTIAN: "So, you're saying believing in something by faith alone is wrong?"
SKEPTIC: "Yes. Science has proven that stuff to be nonsense."
CHRISTIAN: "Oh really? How has science proved that?"
SKEPTIC: "Well, evolution proves it. Scientists have shown evolution to be true."
CHRISTIAN: "Scientists have shown evolution to be true? Just exactly which scientists? Exactly how have they proven evolution true?"
SKEPTIC: "All the scientists! Everyone knows that."
CHRISTIAN: "Well, there are great differences in evolutionary theory in the scientific community. Can you tell me just which version you mean? Tell me which studies you're referring to so I can look at them and address those issues."
SKEPTIC: "I don't know which studies. All I know is that they proved it!"
CHRISTIAN: "Actually, it doesn't sound like you do know. You can't tell me which scientists to which you're referring, you can't tell me which study and you can't tell me how it was proven true. Just where did you get this information?"
SKEPTIC: "It's common knowledge. You hear it all the time."
CHRISTIAN: "Just because you hear something a lot doesn't make it true. At Christmas I hear about Santa all the time, too. That doesn't make him real. What you're asking me to do is believe in evolution without providing me any evidence for doing so. I'm sorry, but I can't do that. I can't just accept what you say as true just because you say it. That would mean I would have to believe it by faith alone, and you just said that was wrong."

inheriting traits from your parents at "random" is observable - you inherit features from your parents, grandparents, etc. i don't think you'd dispute that, you can observe it yourself. that's one key issue "proved" in that it's repeatable

that the "fittest" survive in a given environment (i.e. evolution in action) *is* observable, e.g. with introduction of antibiotics to bacterial cultures. some bacteria tend to survive, and the next time the same antibiotic is introduced, the number killed is significantly less. the "fittest" bacteria survived, reproduced, and their "offspring" are now "better"

survival of the fittest can be repeatably shown by experiment in a very short period of time

[fuddam]

So what...?

Its a historical document or the word of god?

Even if it was the most reliable historical document as you say it still does nothing to prove the assertions that you put forward. Where is the hypothesis and the experiment that proves all this stuff, eh?

reason for mentioning it was simply a response to the assertion that the bible has been twisted over time

if it is proven to be the most reliable historical document in the world, that has a DRAMATIC impact on one's worldview. How so? Well, for one (as TP will object), it gives much weight to the notion that Christ existed. Second, if the Bible claims over 500 people saw Christ after his crucifiction, then that must raise some questions as to how anyone can be alive after death. Or any of the other miracles - if the 5000 men + X number of people saw the 2 fish and 5 loaves feed them all, that must raise some interesting questions for a skeptic.

as far as hypothesis and experiment, where (pray tell) has that taken place as regards macro-evolutionary change, or simply the creation of life on this planet? hmmm......?

[Gr44]

Doesn't logic tell you the chances of an all-powerful being who can click his fingers and in 7 days created the universe, life, people and all the rest sound a little, slim to anyone?

[fuddam]

inheriting traits from your parents at "random" is observable - you inherit features from your parents, grandparents, etc. i don't think you'd dispute that, you can observe it yourself. that's one key issue "proved" in that it's repeatable

that the "fittest" survive in a given environment (i.e. evolution in action) *is* observable, e.g. with introduction of antibiotics to bacterial cultures. some bacteria tend to survive, and the next time the same antibiotic is introduced, the number killed is significantly less. the "fittest" bacteria survived, reproduced, and their "offspring" are now "better"

survival of the fittest can be repeatably shown by experiment in a very short period of time

to quote someone else:

when objecting to the idea of Darwinism, we are only discussing a specific type of evolution - macroevolution. This means that we're talking about life starting spontaneously and from a single organism came every type of living thing we see today - including germs, bugs, animals, fish, and all of the plants too. Not moths changing colors or some such thing. Having different colors or sizes within a species are micro-evolutionary changes and they are not in dispute.

Your claim is about the latter - not good enough.

[fuddam]

Doesn't logic tell you the chances of an all-powerful being who can click his fingers and in 7 days created the universe, life, people and all the rest sound a little, slim to anyone?

you just said 'all powerful'

nuff said.

[TheAnimus]

to quote someone else:

when objecting to the idea of Darwinism, we are only discussing a specific type of evolution - macroevolution. This means that we're talking about life starting spontaneously and from a single organism came every type of living thing we see today - including germs, bugs, animals, fish, and all of the plants too. Not moths changing colors or some such thing. Having different colors or sizes within a species are micro-evolutionary changes and they are not in dispute.

Your claim is about the latter - not good enough.

Mathematical induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or perhaps someone got an awnser they didn't like, so shifted the goal posts. Perhaps the earnest of proof should be on proving that its not a valid induction method?

how different must the fisihes Cichlid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia be?

they're all from the same lake, share many traits yet are often completely different. As you've said colour isn't enough? What about shape? The angelfish to the guppy?

[MadduckUK]

1) he gave his son to die for our sins

why the hell would he have a son? in case he got lonely? where's his wife run off to? its not like he technically died either if he just floats back up to heaven is it? more like a holiday, a break from the norm of floating around on clouds methinks.

[directhex]

as far as hypothesis and experiment, where (pray tell) has that taken place as regards macro-evolutionary change, or simply the creation of life on this planet? hmmm......?

the theory of evolution does not, and has never, explained the creation of life on the planet. that is a completely separate set of theories, by completely different people.

it simply states observed behaviour - survival of the fittest leads to species which are "enhanced" for particular places, out of necessity

[Gr44]

you just said 'all powerful'

nuff said.

I think the fact that was your response is 'nuff said' actually.

My point is do you honestly think that before anything ever existed there was something all powerful, he made this in 7 days ( how the hell do you know that anyway? Did he tell someone several thousand years ago? ).

Then it had a huge interest in making 'us' making Adam and Eve a great gardan but said DONT TOUCH NO APPLEZ - they did. Then he banished them forever, along with billions more people who never did anything wrong other than be part of the biggest incest case in history?

Is how a 'loving' god who 'forgives all' works?

Yeah, Okay.

[iranu]

SKEPTIC: "How can you Christians believe the book of Genesis to be true? All you are relying on is blind faith."
CHRISTIAN: "So, you're saying believing in something by faith alone is wrong?"
SKEPTIC: "Yes. Science has proven that stuff to be nonsense."
CHRISTIAN: "Oh really? How has science proved that?"
SKEPTIC: "Well, evolution proves it. Scientists have shown evolution to be true."
CHRISTIAN: "Scientists have shown evolution to be true? Just exactly which scientists? Exactly how have they proven evolution true?"
SKEPTIC: "All the scientists! Everyone knows that."
CHRISTIAN: "Well, there are great differences in evolutionary theory in the scientific community. Can you tell me just which version you mean? Tell me which studies you're referring to so I can look at them and address those issues."
SKEPTIC: "I don't know which studies. All I know is that they proved it!"
CHRISTIAN: "Actually, it doesn't sound like you do know. You can't tell me which scientists to which you're referring, you can't tell me which study and you can't tell me how it was proven true. Just where did you get this information?"
SKEPTIC: "It's common knowledge. You hear it all the time."
CHRISTIAN: "Just because you hear something a lot doesn't make it true. At Christmas I hear about Santa all the time, too. That doesn't make him real. What you're asking me to do is believe in evolution without providing me any evidence for doing so. I'm sorry, but I can't do that. I can't just accept what you say as true just because you say it. That would mean I would have to believe it by faith alone, and you just said that was wrong."

If a skeptic or Christian or anyone else says this to any of you then you know they are talking bollox and do not understand even the basics of evolution. Evolution, as I have already posted as an addition to Directhex's post, does not and will not ever prove how life came into existence simply because evolution is not concerned with this. Evolution is concerned with the, wait for it, evolution of species, that is already existing life. This theory is rock solid, what you seem to be quibbling about is the various underlying mechanisms of exactly how it works. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution tries to explain how.

The scientific name for the study of life from non-life is Abiogenesis. At the current moment we do not have a solid theory to describe this but we are getting closer. Just recently "clay theory" (see wiki) has been shown to be incorrect. Saw a paper a while ago so should be able to find it.

Fuddam - can you please comment on the video

[fuddam]

the theory of evolution does not, and has never, explained the creation of life on the planet. that is a completely separate set of theories, by completely different people.

it simply states observed behaviour - survival of the fittest leads to species which are "enhanced" for particular places, out of necessity

yes, observed behaviour which has led to deduction - that all life comes from unicellular organisms. A deduction and not a proof. And where is the cross-specie evolution? Unless an angel fish actually IS a guppy, or came from a guppy, or the other way around.....

mysteriouser and mysteriouser.......

[fuddam]

Fuddam - can you please comment on the video

I did already, squire.

[Lightnix]

To be honest, I don't have a problem with them teaching what they believe, their points of view, etc. What really gets me is that they're trying to teach the children 'how to think'.

"You must think creationally"

Well, it's nice to know they've got a choice on the subject and that their take on religion isn't being forced down their very suggestible throats? I wouldn't mind it so much if they were putting it across like 'this is what I believe, blah blah', but they seem to put it like 'This is what I know, they are wrong in every imaginable way'...

As somebody who has been exposed to many different ideals and religions from a young age, I feel quite lucky that I've had a choice to make up my own mind on what I choose to believe, I feel quite sorry that those children never got the chance - not even the chance to think differently, to contemplate those ideals on their own, but to be told what to think and how to think it.