i do understand the difference between the two however, posters in this thread do not apparently.that definition is fine, but it wont work once abiogenesis is a completed theory.
you should probably understand that creationism and ID dont go hand in hand either.My people? creation could mean a whole host of things basically what it boils down to is that we were created by a higher power, that definition work for you?
Contrary to what many atheists have said, Creationists and ID advocates are not the same group and don't always agree on everything. ID advocates generally want ID to be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution. The Discovery Institute is probably the leading organization advocating ID.Harun Yahya, the leading Muslim advocate of creationism, has said that ID is a tool of Satan.http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/intelligent_design.phpAnswers in Genesis(AiG), the leading Christian organization advocating Creationism, does not say that ID is a tool of Satan, but look at what the organization has to say about teaching creation or ID in public schools:"Answers in Genesis has consistently stated that it would be counterproductive for public schools to force science instructors to teach creation or ID. Since most science teachers are evolutionists, they would teach creation or ID poorly—and the effort to introduce counters to evolution would generally backfire." - Mark Looy, CCO, AiG–U.S.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/expelled-reviewYou may disagree with the reason why AiG does not support ID being taught in public schools, but at least you can agree with them that ID should not be be taught in public schools.
weve had discussions about this in the past beach, have you ever actually taken an objective look at evolution? I dont mean books serving agendas i mean taking a look at the concept evidence for it and made an educated decision?Do you not believe in modern dating techniques?
Organizing, meeting, and protesting something they don't believe in. Sounds a little crazy to me.
I think we should give up the term atheist.I don't believe in organising this sort of shit.
Does this mean you will not be joining a national atheist organization? http://www.atheists.org/ http://www.atheistalliance.org/Or watching the Atheist Viewpoint TV show? http://atheistviewpoint.tv/Or attending the national atheist convention? http://www.atheists.org/convention/Or attending an atheist church, aka "humanist centers"? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686828,00.htmlAll this organizing around something they don't believe exists sounds a little nutty to me.
not at all please explain how abiogenesis being proven disproves creation.
No. I don't like any such organisations. Even though I am a freedom loving libertarian I would also never join any libertarian organisation in an active way, just very independent and lone wolfish. Most of the stuff you cited is stupid and I think it is a waste of time.
What do you mean by "objective look"? I've taken numerous courses that taught the theory of evolution. I'd hardly call them objective. What I have done is read books about alternative theories. So, what I've actually done is looked at both sides of the issue. Have you? What modern dating techniques are you talking about?
well if we show how life was created during early conditions and repeat it its pretty safe to assume that was the way life was created with no god needed. To suggest god after a mechanism is elucidated is irrational as you are adding noise to the equation and have more explaining to do.It like creating fire, creating a flame if you will, we know how to do it, how it happens to suggest god created fire makes no sense, you could beleive he invented fire but you would be making some huge assumptions.
No doubt, my anthro classes were pretty much like you say but that doesnt mean that I as an individual didnt take an objective look at the evidence for and against it. What classes did you take beach? carbon dating,potassium-argon dating etc...my point being if you believe that we as humans have always been this form then why are there no humans found that are dated back past like 250,000 yrs? yet there are plenty of organisms that date back much much further?
anything that adds rationality to the world and reduces religious influence is not a waste of time.
I've taken biology, geology, various history, various psychology, and geography classes and they all were either grounded on or at a minimum embraced the theory of evolution. It's hard to take an objective look at a theory when they only present one theory. Some professors even tried to intimidate or ridicule students who had a contrary viewpoint. You should check out the books I read. They really do challenge what we were taught in school. My recall of the whole "carbon dating," etc. stuff is kinda fuzzy, but I don't think the view of a very old earth is inconsistent with intelligent design.
Meh. You don't need to organise around something such as atheism. We don't have words for non-astrologers or non-alchemists. We just speak in plain and rational terms. My atheism has no effect on my life whatsoever, I never think about it at all. Why would I want to join an organisation about something that has no bearing on my life whatsoever?!
LOL not at all simply b/c we as humans find a way to create life(if we ever do) doesnt dismiss God. My belief in God is not based in how we were created, that is merely a part of my belief which by the way abiogenesis doesnt disprove all that proves is how God perhaps made is possible.
your reading comprehension is poor, you keep misundersanding me. I did not say it disporves god but disproves your assertion that god created life, since we could re-create the conditions conducive to life it follows that these conditions created life not god, hence, no god.actually try reading what you read, or if you do, stop making straw arguments.there seems to be a trend in the religious folk here.
because alchemy and astrology are minor concerns compared to the major concern of religion and religious ideas.I see the analogy but i think it's flawed as i beleive would should oppose anything as suppressive and dangerous as religion, look at the middle east.i doubt it has no effect on your life and i doubt it has little effect on sam harris as the dude writes numerous books, blogs, videos on the subject...the opposition of religion is what my atheism is defined by to a degree.
Active opposition to religion is more anti-theism. I don't know, my life is largely unaffected by the ravings of the religious, so why bother? Nice to argue here on getbig every now and then though...
Haha dont Kid yourself Deicide, Religion owns your mind, you think about it at night before you go to sleep, maybe thats what keeps you awake for so long.
i doubt it has no effect on your life and i doubt it has little effect on sam harris as the dude writes numerous books, blogs, videos on the subject...the opposition of religion is what my atheism is defined by to a degree.
because alchemy and astrology are minor concerns compared to the major concern of religion and religious ideas.I see the analogy but i think it's flawed as i beleive would should oppose anything as suppressive and dangerous as religion, look at the middle east.
WWI(1914 - 1918): 19,772,701 casualtieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#ReferencesWWII(1930s – 1945): 62,000,000 casualties- World War II: Combatants and Casualties (1937 — 1945). Retrieved on 2007-04-20. - Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm. Retrieved on 2007-04-20. - World War II Fatalities. Retrieved on 2007-04-20. Joseph Stalin's Great Purge(1937 -1938): 1,200,000 casualties- Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments by Historian Michael Ellman, 2002 Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward(1958 - 1960): 43,000,000 casualties- Peng Xizhe (彭希哲), "Demographic Consequences of the Great Leap Forward in China's Provinces," Population and Development Review 13, no. 4 (1987), 639-70.Pol Pot's agrarian collectivization (1975 -1979): 1,700,000 casualties- Sophal Ear (May 1995). The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979: The Standard Total Academic View on Cambodia. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.In Chapter 1: Introduction - The Cambodian Genocide Program. Retrieved on 2007-11-02.These were not committed by ancient, primitive people and they were not inspired by religious beliefs. These were committed by "modern civilized people" inspired by secular ideologies like Nationalism and Communism. And the cause for the current, global economic crisis has nothing to do with faith in God, but it has a lot to do with greed, dishonesty, and materialism, all of which are condemned by God according to the Bible.
Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and company love religion and they love God too, because writing about religion and about God has made them all very rich.There are other things far more dangerous than faith in God, but I don't see atheists, agnostics or non-religious people in general organizing to oppose these things with the same zeal.
Halfway decent post....
