Evolution v Intelligent Design; Should we really teach evolution?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Norsefire, Aug 20, 2008.

  1. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Our constituent particles will go on existing, but the pattern called you won't be recognizable. The thing called you was never really a separate thing anyway, but a loose association, a temporary weather pattern in a larger storm.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Quantum immortality is speculation.
    And how can the death of consciousness support reincarnation?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    That supports re incarnation

    The death of a brain; if new brains are born "you" could be that brain, i.e, you are a conscious being as a brain, because you HAVE to be conscious

    I think it's entirely ignorant to assert that there isn't an afterlife. It's about as stupid as strong atheism.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    So it couldn't be a new pesronality?
    Reincarnation begs the question where did the first personalities come from if we've all been recycled a gazillion times....

    It's stupid to assert that as there is no evidence the hypothesis would appear to be invalid?
     
  8. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    I'm not talking about personalities I'm talking about consciousness. As long as consciousness exists, you MUST be conscious, in some way or another

    Strong atheism is a positive position, not a negative one; indeed, it's a belief, just like theism.
     
  9. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Except when you die, or are aslepp or before you were born... Consciosness is an emergent property: it comes out the complexity of the brain.

    Nope: it's a belief based on lack of evidence and weight of probability, as opposed to theism which is a belief based on wishful thinking and gullibility.
     
  10. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Before you were born, how do you know that you didn't used to be a person? Memory is tied to the physical body, but the soul would not be.

    That's where you are wrong, they can not determine probabilities and for reasons mentioned earlier in regards to ID, the probablity of ID is high enough that it's foolish to positively claim God does not exist
     
  11. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Read this

     
  12. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I don't know: but there's nothing to suggest that I was.

    Numerical probabilities don't need to be determined: the evidence that there IS a god is non-existent to slim. Therefore the weight of probability is that there isn't one...
    The probability of ID?
    No evidence for that either.

    Only a fool says since there's no evidence to say that X exists I'll still believe it's probable that it does.
     
  13. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    An interesting problem is there is no way of knowing, because if you were another person, you lost all memory of it. Also read the little excerpt above


    There is no evidence, again, it's based on observation and logical thinking.

    Didn't we just have this discussion?
     
  14. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    So if there's no way of knowing the point becomes moot since it cannot inform or affect my current life.
    Null question.

    Observation and logical thinking?
    Nah, it's a question of interpretation.
    Theists have faulty perception

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is SciForums.
    We ALWAYS have the same discussions if you sticak around long enough

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    It's still interesting to research, though. If we prove that there is an afterlife, it would probably change the way people live their lives.

    I already explained this; we can observe forces of causation, and therefore we know that our universe was either created or came to be naturally. Anything beyond, as details, are irrelevant and unknowable.

    True, lol
     
  16. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Here is some interesting info

     
  17. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    And this

     
  18. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    11 subjects, 9 gave information that deviated from history and then they claim that only 1% (of the population! Some one teach them how to apply statistics) was inaccurate?

    Let's see: 9/11 = 1%.
    Yep, got it.
    Oh hang on....
     
  19. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    I concur.
    While there is no real problem with the suggest that they can do this. It is a matter of math. And it's simply not likely at all that life builds up to more complex forms when the very nature of everything in the universe is to decay.
     
  20. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Apart from the fact that exactly that it is seen every day you mean?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2008
  21. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    What do you think "quantum immortality" is?
    What's even dumber, is your assertion without any real evidence, that you know what happens. How is that logical?
    No it doesn't. Where did you get that illogical idea from?

    What are these observations you claim to base all this "logical thinking" on? The ones that aren't any evidence?
     
  22. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Same fallacy as earlier. I bet every example you would use would involve humans making things - which you then decide to apply to the entire universe. Why?

    No, you are missing the key, which is categorization: Neither of these concepts are science and as such have no place in science class.

    Well, you're the one saying intelligence and it seemingly changes and adapts, (evolves if you will), as this thread continues. I think we need to be precise here because there are countless science students that would benefit from it.

    "Hi guys, listen I just thought I'd mention that well, it's 'possible' some intelligence did it all. No, don't ask for any further clarification, I wont give you any. Just thought I'd mention it. Now, let's get back to science".

    "Excuse me", student raises hand "what do you mean exactly?"

    "Didn't I just tell you not to ask for further clarification!? Intelligence just means intelligence!"

    Students all leave classroom.

    Is that what you're after? If not, you'll need to be specific.

    I take it science was never your strong subject? How can detail be irrelevant? [lol]

    1) See above.

    2) I have already said I am ok with the idea. No really, I am - as long as it is in the appropriate place. Your detail-less 'something smart did it' statement has no place in a science class but don't let me stop you trying to get it taught in..... church perhaps - yes, that's the appropriate place for it. But wait, you don't mean god when you say god. Hmm.. maybe we could set up an "it's possible" class where we fill the kids heads with all kinds of "possibles".

    And that is fine, start an X-Files fan club or something. Why try and shove non-science into science?
     
  23. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Just a quick hello, goodbye. Glad to be out of here. I like the idea of teaching "possibles". Just remember that the possibilty that Norsefire may be wrong has no place in the syllabus.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2008

Share This Page