[dragon master]

The Bible definitely says Homosexuallity is wrong with

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  Leviticus 20:13

as just one example. Using the bible to prove homosexuallity is right won't get you anywhere, sorry.

Oh, and I'm not saying I think Homosexuallity is wrong, I tend not to agree with the bible on a lot of issues.

Oh, and by the way if Delstro is called a sick sonofabitch for saying something that is definitely stated(except "put to death" instead of shot as they didn't have guns back then) in the Bible, maybe it is the Bible that is sick?

Oh, and intelligent design is solely a religious concept as it requires a god or other supernatural entity to create life(for as people say if a natural entity did it, how did they evolve?). Evolution, however, is a theory in the scientific meaning of the word. The same way that the Theory of Gravity is a theory. Evolution is pretty well proven. And frankly, there doesn't need to be any intelligent design for life to exist. Maybe there was, but since it could have happened anyway, why not focus on the evolution part and not on the part that may or may not have happened depending on your religion?

Though, I must say that if there was intelligent design, you'd think they would have designed it without things like poisoness snakes and plants, tsunamis, plagues, and such.

[Kopribear]

Delstro is a human being, just as any human being. If homosexuality is indeed a sin (I wasn't saying the bible advocated it, I was saying the bible teaches tolerance... not as an argument in itself but as a retort to any Christian claiming its sin. Take the plank out of your eye first kinda thing.) and Delstro is looking at it in that sense, then he needs to think about all of his sins first and then talk about who needs to be put to death. From above the wicked shall recieve their just reward.

But I'm thinking that he was not speaking as a Christian, but as a potential member of a certain supremicists club I know of... burn any crosses lately, Delstro?


Anyway, back to the bible thing, the bible is full of lots of contradictions. That's all I was trying to say by quoting it so much. There are arguments either way. I tend to not agree with it a lot of the time as well.

[Yui Unifex]

It's important to remember that evolution is not a theory on the origin of the universe, so arguments about the big bang are wider in scope than I am addressing.

But even then, both theories do not have the same problem when it comes to the origin of life.  Non-religious intelligent design specifically disproves itself in this context, while evolution has no such fatal flaw.

[Jeena]

Using religion as an argument against homosexuality is a cop out. For one thing if we were still following Old Testament law verbatim we'd stlil have slavery, women would have few if any property rights, men could have concubines, children would belong to their husbands, and etc. AND if you do believe in the things the Bible says you'll believe that the New Testament washed away the old (barring that you're not a Muslim or Jewish) and that the laws of 'do unto others' and 'turn the other cheek' and 'tolerance' are the laws we are to be following today.

Now...all that said... As long as the Constitution states that all men (and presumably women) are created equal we must assume that they are all created equal... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is their business (this of course is a US argument, those of you elsewhere will have to discuss this from your p.o.v). As long as their rights do not infringe on anyone elses who they sleep with is no one's business.

I personally don't give two cents who sleeps with who as long as they are doing their jobs and letting me do mine.

[AC1]

[Jaregarde]

It's interesting to me that we are talking about gay rights and evolution in the same topic. Because a gay friend of mine once told me he thought that homosexuality was essentially the human race's own mechanism for preventing overpopulation. It is interesting to ponder over...

And yes, I would shoot him.
I promise.

[Yui Unifex]

The same can be said for any other aspect of science. The internal flaws inherent in non-religious intelligent design are due to its own internal inconsistency and have nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

[shadowfyr]

Not 'exactly'. Much like most things in the bible there are instances where things are not quite so clear cut or even in direct contradiction. For example, the same King condemned by god for the rape of Bestheba (I think it was) is earlier quoted saying that "my love for you is greater than any love I could have for a woman." I don't have the exact quote, but that is more or less what it said. Of course I am sure believers in 'Bible = anti-gay' will 'try' to claim this is mere friendship. But these are the same morons that insist it all must be taken literally, only as usual, in this case they are 'choosing' to believe that such a statement is about friendship, when it would have been much easier and less ambiguous for him to have proclaimed, "My friendship with you is greater than that I could have with any woman. Why their god, being perfect would even 'allow' such ambiguity, unless there truly isn't any and more than friendship was involve, it totally beyond me. lol

There are other examples as well that are a bit... iffy about what they mean, though I can't remember what they where. The only thing the Bible seems to explicitely condemn is not homosexuality, but sodamy, which can happen with a woman as well as a man. So, saying that laying with a man as with a woman would imply sodamy, even if the relationship itself is never explicitly condemned. Its also interesting that there is no mention of women sleeping with other women 'at all', so the Bible, if it is against gays, has a **major** double standard.

[shadowfyr]

Umm. No, they are not on equal footing. ID has *no* evidence supporting it. It isn't even a theory. A theory has to provide not just some lame assed attempt to explain things, it must present tests that can prove it. It has to say, if ID is really true, then we should see X, Y and Z. ID starts with the premise that something are irreducible, impossible to happen by chance, then sits back and says, "So there!!". Well, problem with that is we know of many irreducible things that happen by random chance and are even testing the basics of 'how' that kind of systems develop with Avida:



Numerous ID and creationism proponents have 'tried' to prove this simulation is flawed or that the people that developed it somehow 'stacked' the system in favor of producing irreducible complexity through mutation. The best they managed is to find a few software bugs. So, their #1 premise is false. There #2 premise, that a thing cannot be science if you do not personally witness it is purely stupid. By that logic forensics isn't a 'science', because unless someone witnesses the event, any evidence you collect or theories you derive from it are pure nonsense. After all, the evidence could have gotten there through miriad unknown means and any theories derived from it is by definition mere speculation. Must make double murders, where there isn't even anyone left to arrest real interesting... For another similar example, there is this piece:



Now, evolution says, "Random mutations give rise to changes, which overtime result in beneficial changes forming new species. For this to be true we need: a) fossil records showing a progression from primitive to complex forms, DNA profiles showing common ancestry and traits that can be tracked back to more primitive forms, evidence of significant mutations that give rise to something radically different (no big animals yet, unless you count some fish species that when cut off from others by natural disasters became hermaphrodites, but there are also 'plenty' of cases of this in micro organisms). In fact, there is also what are called 'ring' species, where a landslide or other change to the environment cut off two groups from each other, but the entire 'range' forms a ring around the mountain. While each subgroup can breed with its nearest neighbor, with as many as a dozen or more sub-species, the two groups that have been completely cut off from each other for thousands of years cannot breed with each other. I.e. A-B-C-D-E-F-G / A, where / is the landslide)" There is evidence of 'all' of these things. Where is IDs 'evidence'? Oh right, I forgot, you have to actually have a 'theory' before you can find evidence of it... After all, its pretty hard to find something if you don't have the slightest clue what you are looking for. ID is nothing more than creationism wearing a mask (the cheap paper bag type you made as a kid in first grade...)

[Earthmother]

[Kopribear]

*sits in the corner taking notes... minus the ones about evolution*

What do you all think of the statement, "Most homophobes are homosexual, but in denial of their sexuality," ?

[Ilkidarios]

Yeah, it's made out of magic rainbows. And fried babies.

[BaenSidhe]

Have you seen the following article?



BaenSidhe

[Ilkidarios]

Most of those people who believe in ID believe that natural selection can take place, but perhaps there was an outside influence. The truth is, people who think that their theory is absolute and there is no other answer when it hasn't been proven are ignorant. That goes for both Creationists and Evolutionists. And furthermore, anything that someone believes can be a theory. Religion is a theory because it is an idea used to explain something. When you are trying to have an intelligent discussion it is best not to belittle other's explanations because theirs are often as valid as your own. In summary, I think the evolution argument in here has gone far enough. Both sides are fools who simply try to tear down other's ideas because they do not "agree" with their own line of thought. Bertrand Russell once said: "I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine." And I agree.

[dragon master]

It definitely does, unless you think it means that people should be put do death for doing the right thing. The Bible definitely says homosexuallity is wrong. Now, that doesn't mean it only says it's wrong. The Bible is full of contradictions. This is one of the reasons I don't think it is a very effective source to be quoting.

---now about evolution---

As for the person who says that evolution won't work until we find fossils of creatures from the gap between man and ape, umm, I hate to break it to you but a long stream of fossils have been found between ape and man.

Also, Intelligent Design(which is not creationism) is basicly saying "evolution is how things work but God decided how things went", so believing in it is fine, but teaching it in a secular school system would require you to remove God from the equation and basicly teach "evolution is how things work" which is the same as teaching evolution.

Also, the first life evolved from the soup (which by the way, the initial conditions have been simulated and scientists have had basic amino acids and such develop just by hitting the "soup" with electricity, which occurs naturally in the form of lighting, an event that happened more on the early earth) over 300 million years. Do you realize how long that is? Chemical reactions on the small scale (remember that the initial life was bacteria so small that you need special microscopes to see) are usually very quick and 300 million years is a very long time. That means there are an unfathomable number of reactions that took place and the likelyhood of at least one of those producing very very simple life(which then evolves to be more complex) is almost 1.

Even if it weren't so high, the universe is incredibly large, if there was let's say a million planets somewhere in the universe that have the potential for life. The odds of at least one of those having life are insanely high. You might say that why do the other planets matter at all, we're talking about earth? But then you aren't using logic, as the fact is, IF there is a living race that can question how life came to be, it must be on a planet with life. Which means, that if even one planet in the entire universe evolved life, there'd be at least one planet with life and so the whole "how did life come to be on this planet?" question would be meaningless, since, as living creatures, we'd be on one of those planets with life.

Since evolution is an entirely viable theory, (and I mean theory in the scientific sense, where creationism is not trully a theory since there is no evidence to support it), teaching Intelligent Design has no point except to show the existence of God. I'm not saying that God exists or doesn't exist, but we shouldn't be teaching in public schools theories that are designed to show the existence of God. Save that for parents and private schools. Teaching intelligent design in public schools is akin to teaching in social studies not only the wars, but that each war is caused by God for punishment. You may believe God causes wars(or peace for that matter), but it has no place in the school systems.

[shadowfyr]

Well Ilkidarios, I am reminded of two quotes:

"In real life, every field of science is incomplete, and most of them - whatever the record of accomplishment during the last 200 years - are still in their very earliest stages." - Lewis Thomas

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." - Stephen Jay Gould

However, Dragon Master's statement is the key. ID says 'evolution happens, but something 'guides' it'. The silly thing about this is that it you still have to explain where that 'thing' came from. If it was space aliens, then how did 'they' become able to 'guide' life? The inevitably answer is still going to be God, but not one that is all powerful, but one that created some life, which then created more, that then created something else, etc., while God was on lunch break. Its infinitely recursive, right back to the formation of the first planet actually capable of 'maybe' having life. And, its a pointless complication. Fossil records will 'never' likely be comeplete. Too many geological events have happened that would have destroyed the majority of them. Your right that anyhing can be a 'theory', but we have to limit the theories to ones that have evidence to support them. There are several hundred myths, besides the Christian one, which describe how things where 'created', there are additional stories, many similar to ID that describe how it all could have been created. Any crackpot can come up with a 'theory' about how things work, but a science class is about what we have "provisional assent" to, not 'any' and 'every' theory someone else comes up with. If we had to teach every theory someone comes up with for every bit of science that is 'imperfect' and therefor not 100% proven, we would spend 7 hours out of every 8 hour school day just learning about all the 'alternative' theories various people now have, did have or invent while in the classroom for every single subject in science.

Let me repeat that, science classes are about what the majority of scientists who are involved with a subject have provisionally assented to as the most likely answer. And by provisional assent, they mean that they accept it as the most 'likely' explaination so far, given all of the evidence so far, and that such assent will be given up if evidence arises to suggest that the present theory is invalid, while an alternative better represents what the evidence suggests. Evolution has undergone multiple adjustments and modification to provide more accurate theories about specifics, but the general concept is still sound, much like how Newtonian physicals 'still' applies in simple systems where absolute precision is not needed, but has been otherwise superseded by Einsteins theories and those will probably be adjusted or replaced with something even more accurate.

The only possible reason for teaching ID in a school is if you want to permanently discredit it. However, given that ID proponents would be providing the details of 'how' it should be taught and thus how evolution itself would be, the result is an even more serious failure at teaching what nearly 'all' biologists assent to as valid, in trade for someone basically asking, "What if something else did it?" Of course the joke here is that Avida already proved that once life in 'any' form starts to evolve at all, any 'creator' would lose all capacity to guide or control it. At best such a creator would have lost complete control over the situation the instant they so much as dropped the first microbe on the planet.

As for the supposed claim that evolutionists believe that their theory is an absolute. What part of "It has changed multiple times since first proposed", and, "provisional consent", do you not understand. The simple truth is that the **only** people claiming that evolution proponents are inflexible, unable to see the gaps in their ideas, or close minded are those trying to get creationism taught in schools. Even the Catholic Church has dropped the issue and accepted that evolution is the most likely answer to how life came to be how it is and that they all must have had a common decent. The 'only' exception they insist on making is claiming that 'man' was specially created 'after'. As Dragon Master points out, if ID's 'only' argument was that something might have 'started' life on earth, then let it evolve on its own, there would be no point whatsoever of even mentioning it in a class, since while there are some theories about how life 'may' have started, evolutions main focus is on everything that happens once life already exists. (At least until they can show life simply starting up.) ID goes beyond that though and tries to claim that specific structure where 'designed' and that some force 'guides' the process. There is no evidence of this and 'all' existing evidence suggests that it is not only unnecessary, but that while complex those structurs can arise without guidence and show precisely the sort of flaws, errors, inefficiencies and mistakes that 'only' happen due to random chance.

Its no more reasonable to teach ID as an alternative in a science class than to teach that storks deliver babies, Santa Claus has a shop at the north pole, that gravity is really millions of tiny demons holding onto out feet, or that the entire universe came about through the pagan legend of a lonely female diety, who split off a part of herself, which became different (male), then sped off away from her, thus becoming 'our' universe. Science requires a reason to believe that a theory may be true, before it can consider it, otherwise its nothing more than fiction. The problem in this case being that there is evidence to completely disprove 'all' of IDs assertions and 'none' to support them. The reason why you keep hearing about scientists being closed minded is simply because they get seriously ****ed off at every nut on the planet, who knows absolutely nothing about the science, trying to shove undefensible philisophical nonsense into science with the claim, "But I have this theory!"

[Yui Unifex]

But not a scientific theory.

You think that's bad? Non-religious intelligent design does not agree with its own line of thought. You have incorrectly characterized a logical flaw with a subjective opinion.

[Fifi]

While not a proponent of ID I don't think it is fair to compare it to Santa Claus. After all, noted physisist and cosmologist (not the hairdressers, the other guys) devote more time and energy to studying the existance of God than, Kris Kringle.

[Ilkidarios]

Just like I said in an earlier post, if something guides evolution, evolution exists.  If something can guide evolution, then they have most probably evolved themselves.  This means that there is no mystery to where a creator came from.  It evolved.  However, it would have used evolution to create life on Earth.  One example of using evolution to create life that can succeed is in animal husbandry.  Essentially these alien "creators" would have husbanded apes together to create a life-form capable of eking out a living on Earth.  It's quite simple actually.  Its much easier to create successful life when there is external influences.  That means that evolution exists, but our evolution was a controlled evolution.  Think about the breeding of dogs.  I could take a large, frail dog and a small, tough dog and hopefully breed out the small and frail genes to create a better dog.  Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, pioneered the modifying of lower lifeforms with the humble pea plant.  Presumably over years of genetic manipulation and experiments, you could create a being on the sentient level of ourselves.  And that being that we created would have been made from Intelligent Design.  Once again: Intelligent Design is not the denial of evolution, but the suggestion that Earth was subjected to external influences in its own evolutionary path.