[Yui Unifex]

Oh the tangents =).

Originally Posted by (Ilkidarios @ May 17 2005,19:19) Intelligent Design and Evolution are both theories on equal footing, Intelligent Design isn't strictly a religious belief, but there are all kinds of people who believe in some form of it.

I wouldn't say so. While we will never have exact proof for either theory, evolution is in a much stronger position because of a fatal flaw in the arguments used by the proponents of non-religious intelligent design.

If life was too complex to have come about on its own, this makes intelligent design entirely irrelevant as the initial origin of life, because at the very beginning there were obviously no designers in the first place. If there were designers, then they must have come about on their own by some means. If we argue that intelligent design created life on Earth, we have only pushed the question of the origin of life up one level of abstraction, and thus have only solved a very narrow problem which evolution can easily address.

All gay people have the right to be shot.
And that is the only right they get.

[AC1]

Originally Posted by I'm quite unsure as to how one can compare two adults being civilly united to pedophilia. I see your point, it just doesn't seem likely at all. Congress knows how to draw lines. But they also know how to cross them. I'd like to see a pedophile's argument as to why he/she can marry a child. That pursuit of happiness is infringing upon parental rights... and the well being of the child.

Hey, I didn't say it was a -good- arguement, but it is one I've seen advocates of "preservering the traditional definition of marriage" use durring interviews on TV. So there is a chance someone might use it in a debate.

Originally Posted by I wouldn't say so. While we will never have exact proof for either theory, evolution is in a much stronger position because of a fatal flaw in the arguments used by the proponents of non-religious intelligent design. If life was too complex to have come about on its own, this makes intelligent design entirely irrelevant as the initial origin of life, because at the very beginning there were obviously no designers in the first place. If there were designers, then they must have come about on their own by some means. If we argue that intelligent design created life on Earth, we have only pushed the question of the origin of life up one level of abstraction, and thus have only solved a very narrow problem which evolution can easily address.

Both theories have the same problem when dealing with the prime mover, the first thing. Where did the creator come from? If the universe did not exist before the big bang, then what banged, where was it when it banged, and what caused it to bang? Random inorganic chemical soup spontaniously becoming life also sounds a little dodgy. Ok, stuff left in my fridge too long spontaniously begins to host life, but I assume the mold spores were pre-existing. When you get to the first things, all theories are basically speculation. So it doesn't make much sense to me to argue about it. In the end it doesn't really matter if life occured spontainiously, was created, or some combination of the two. What matters is how you live the life you have right now.


Angela Christine

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (AC1 @ May 18 2005,02:41) Both theories have the same problem when dealing with the prime mover, the first thing.  Where did the creator come from?  If the universe did not exist before the big bang, then what banged, where was it when it banged, and what caused it to bang?

Newtonian mechanics were discredited almost 100 years ago by Einstein, and have not gotten more relevant to cosmology since then.

Casual relationships such as you describe have as one of their necessary elements the dimension onf time. Time, however, did not exist prior to its creation in the Big Bang. There was no "before." There also was no "where" as the dimensions of physical space were also created therein. Weird concepts, I know, and theories about the millionth of a second after the Big Bang and, of course, the Big Bang itself are extremely speculative at this point, so take it for whatever it's worth. A lot of really smart people who study cosmology for a living don't understand it yet though, so it's unlikely we're going to.

--matt

[Ilkidarios]

Originally Posted by (Delstro @ May 18 2005,01:24) All gay people have the right to be shot. And that is the only right they get.

Look man, I don't WANT to shoot you, but... If you say so...

[Ilkidarios]

Originally Posted by (Yui Unifex @ May 17 2005,21:04) If life was too complex to have come about on its own, this makes intelligent design entirely irrelevant as the initial origin of life, because at the very beginning there were obviously no designers in the first place.  If there were designers, then they must have come about on their own by some means.  If we argue that intelligent design created life on Earth, we have only pushed the question of the origin of life up one level of abstraction, and thus have only solved a very narrow problem which evolution can easily address.

Well, evolution doesn't easily address the dilemma itself. As many of those pro-intelligent design people have brought up, it is very difficult for evolution to work. It's hard for random chance to create anything decent. Also, we don't have our missing link that proves that humans evolved from apes. I think humans evolved from apes, but until we find a link fossil we can't prove the point. And furthermore, none of the I-design theorists said that evolution doesn't occur. They just think that life was created with external help besides pure chance. For example, alien species could have evolved on their own and then come and screwed around with earth for a while before producing a pet project of sentient beings. Intelligent design is not a denial that evolution exists, but a suggestion that perhaps there was external help in the development of life on earth.

[Ilkidarios]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ May 18 2005,14:19) Time, however, did not exist prior to its creation in the Big Bang. There was no "before."

Well, time doesn't necessarily exist now.  There is an inner time that scientists like to call "soul-time" which is an internal sense of something passing.  Humans can sense the passing of moments, and can recollect past moments, but that isn't really time.  There is also external time, which is time on a clock, not necessarily time but a measurement of the hand going around the clock.  The time we think of as "before" isn't really "before" but a "now" trillions of "nows" ago.  Many scientists have asked "what is time?" and "how long is a now?" but we will never have an answer.  There is no way to measure something that isn't actually a force or anything physical.  Time is more mysterious than a black hole, in that it is a force, but then again, it isn't a force.  It is nothing that is quantifiable in physical terms, but can only be thought of.  I don't think we'll ever know what time is, but we'll just keep measuring the hands going around the clock face and forget about it.  I also believe the common theory about the bang is that there was a large ball of energy in the center of what is now the universe, and it blew up.  It melted all the forces together and then when it cooled down we gained the four forces of gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and one more that I can't think of right now.

[Iluvatar]

Isn't this all a bit silly?

I mean yes, there's a debate over what lengths an emotional attachment between two same sex partners has in law. But, the US is inherently puritanical in belief since Plymouth Rock and the controversy about "gay" will always exist just like the "right to life" movement will never go away regardless of law.

Religious dogma promotes propagation to increase membership in that form of faith to gain power from sheer numbers, has been that way for centuries and won't change. Gay doesn't make babies, ergo religion denies them freedom of choice and the subsequent rebellion we all have to deal with in the news.

My perception is regardless of sex, two people can love each other. I love my wife and I understand that emotional dedication. Sexuality is a demonstration of the love by nature and two people in love perform pleasing acts together to satisfy physical and emotional needs. I firmly believe hormones and life experiences dictate what your preferences are, and I also consider there's a bit of rebellion in some "wannabe" types that adopt the lifestyle just because it gets attention. Should it be legal? Well, any adult can sign a piece of notarized paper stating exactly what their wishes are so a lot of this controversy is pure hype intended for stabbing at the stoicisms of both religion and law.

Jazuela...I again commend you on what I perceive to be well thought out and enlightening comments.

[Iluvatar]

Ilkidarios...

Those have got to be amazing drugs, can I have the formula?

[Kopribear]

Originally Posted by (Delstro @ May 18 2005,01:24) All gay people have the right to be shot. And that is the only right they get.

What kind of a sick sonofabitch says something like that? You have the right to dislike homosexuality. You have the right to express it... but not the right to make such disgusting comments about fellow HUMAN BEINGS. You never know, one of your closest friends could be gay and afraid to tell you because you're so disgustingly ignorant about the whole topic. Would you shoot them if you had the choice? In my opinion, people like YOU should have only the right to have a frontal lobotomy... but that's not the way it is. It's NEVER your right to decide whether someone should live or die, ESPECIALLY not based on something like sexuality.

Maybe you should make the eyeholes on your white hood a little bigger, because it seems as though you have trouble seeing the big picture. Your kind of self-righteous, supremicist mentality went out of style a long time ago. Do you hate people of other races, too? Better yet, are you a misogynist? Because if you detest those of differences that they cannot change, why stop at sexuality?

Please realize that the only reason I'm reacting this way toward you is your blatant _expression of generalized hatred for people that you don't even know. Had you expressed yourself a little better, maybe you would have merited a little respect. Remember this: hate breeds hate. In short... go to h e l l.



Love and smoochies,

Kopri

[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]

Originally Posted by (AC1 @ May 18 2005,02:41) Both theories have the same problem when dealing with the prime mover, the first thing.  Where did the creator come from?  If the universe did not exist before the big bang, then what banged, where was it when it banged, and what caused it to bang?  Random inorganic chemical soup spontaniously becoming life also sounds a little dodgy.

Originally Posted by (Ilkidarios @ foo) As many of those pro-intelligent design people have brought up, it is very difficult for evolution to work.

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]

The existance of the universe, and how that happened, are inexorably linked to the development of life. Spontanious generation of life requires that a planet with chemical stew (or perhaps some other location) exist for life to pop into existance on. No stew = no life. Where did the stew come from? From the planet. Where did the planet come from? Side effect or detrius left over from the development of the star. Where did the star-stuff come from? And so on. Trying to explain life without explaining the universe is like trying to explain the existance of children without mentioning parents -- you can do it, but it is going to be incomplete.

When you work your way back to first principles, all the theories are pretty mind boggling.



There is no time, there is only clocks and memory. Or possibly the memory of clocks. The past is unchanging. The now is a series of nearly instantanious moments, too quick to take note of (when you take note of them you are remembering, so that particular now has already passed). The future is unknowable, your character and intentions will determine how you act and react to it, but by the time that happens it won't be the future anymore, it will blip through now and quickly become memory. Blarg!



All of which has nothing to do with human rights as they apply to homosexuals. Or MU*s.


Angela Christine

[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...

Originally Posted by (Kopribear @ May 18 2005,16:38) Originally Posted by (Delstro @ May 18 2005,01:24) All gay people have the right to be shot. And that is the only right they get. What kind of a sick sonofabitch says something like that? You have the right to dislike homosexuality. You have the right to express it... but not the right to make such disgusting comments about fellow HUMAN BEINGS. You never know, one of your closest friends could be gay and afraid to tell you because you're so disgustingly ignorant about the whole topic. Would you shoot them if you had the choice? In my opinion, people like YOU should have only the right to have a frontal lobotomy... but that's not the way it is. It's NEVER your right to decide whether someone should live or die, ESPECIALLY not based on something like sexuality. Maybe you should make the eyeholes on your white hood a little bigger, because it seems as though you have trouble seeing the big picture. Your kind of self-righteous, supremicist mentality went out of style a long time ago. Do you hate people of other races, too? Better yet, are you a misogynist? Because if you detest those of differences that they cannot change, why stop at sexuality? Please realize that the only reason I'm reacting this way toward you is your blatant _expression of generalized hatred for people that you don't even know. Had you expressed yourself a little better, maybe you would have merited a little respect. Remember this: hate breeds hate. In short... go to h e l l. Love and smoochies, Kopri

And yes, I would shoot him.
I promise.

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (AC1 @ May 18 2005,20:53) The existance of the universe, and how that happened, are inexorably linked to the development of life.

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.