PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Obama Got It Right

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mr. Obama embraces the theory of evolution and argues that the teaching of intelligent design and other creationist ideas “cloud” a student’s understanding of science. While Mr. McCain says he personally believes in evolution, he has also said children should be taught “all points of view.”



It will be nice to have a US president who isn't beholden to the religious right!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:00 AM on October 17, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Believe me. The world wants you to have that kind of president.

But it's like some americans think: "If the world wants this for us, it obviously can't be good."

To conciliate the actions of the present government with christian beliefs is as hard as to defend creationism. And creationism is less dangerous than to think that GOD entitles YOUR PARTICULAR NATION to intervene in the affairs of lesser, oilier ones.

I don't really like the fact that your president can have suck an importance. But it does. And with Obama the world would be better.

Any person who believes a black guy shouldn't be president, shouldn't have a vote. I discriminate against stupidity.

EDIT: Somehow i don't believe that "all points of view" would include pastafarism.


(Edited by wisp 10/18/2008 at 10:14 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:12 AM on October 17, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

just for the record.  for obama to make such a claim outright shows his hypocrisy in that he claims to be a christian, to pray to god, and mention god's hand in the events of the world in speeches, then turns around and denounces a creator.

quite funny if u ask me.

how much u wanna bet that he still says, "so help me god." if elected?

(Edited by dijonaise 10/17/2008 at 1:23 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 1:18 PM on October 17, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 1:18 PM on October 17, 2008 :
just for the record.  for obama to make such a claim outright shows his hypocrisy in that he claims to be a christian, to pray to god, and mention god's hand in the events of the world in speeches, then turns around and denounces a creator.

quite funny if u ask me.

(Edited by dijonaise 10/17/2008 at 1:21 PM).



Your conclusion is puzzling to me. That life has changed over time via natural means isn't a denouncement of any kind of creator. Are you also hypocritical for making choices about your life while claiming God can influence your life at any time? Do you honestly see no similarity between the two examples?




(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/17/2008 at 1:27 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:26 PM on October 17, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Believing in evolution doesn't mean that you can't also believe in God.  A lot of people can believe in both.  

Read that first sentence again:
Mr. Obama embraces the theory of evolution and argues that the teaching of intelligent design and other creationist ideas “cloud” a student’s understanding of science

He is essentially saying that ID and Creationism are not SCIENCE.  They have no place in the SCIENCE classroom.  He doesn't say anything about not believing in God.

Did you know that many of the founding fathers of this country - Washington, Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Monroe, Franklin, etc - were primarily Deists.  Go look it up.  

The religious right can't stand this fact either, and have made up false quotes and attributing them to these men - quotes that were never made by them that claim faith in the Bible and Christianity.  It exactly parallels the same ignorance, denial, and misleading  that Creationists do so much of.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:48 PM on October 17, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK...OK...OK...i was probably hasty in my remark, but it still seems a little difficult to me for a person to hold a copy of 'origins' in one hand while holding a bible in the other.  i know - i know...believing in evolution doesn't necessarily have an affect on believing in a diety, but by what i've noticed by discussing with people in this forum is that, to the evolutionist, the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale full of inconsistencies, and shouldn't be taken seriously.  with that said,  it seems that for one to say that discussing intelligent design isn't a legit thing to do, while saying that he is a bible-believing christian...well...i'm sorry, but that still seems a little hypocritical to me.
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 3:11 PM on October 17, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK - let me ask you a question then.  Why should ID be treated as a science?  

Remeber, for an idea to be treated as a valid scientific hypothesis it  must be 1) testable, and 2) falsifiable.  

A scientist tries to disprove a hypothesis.  If the reults agree with a hypothesis, it doesn't make that hypothesis correct.  It merely shows that the hypothesis can explain that particular situation.  You move forward with other tests to try to disprove the hypothesis.

If the hypothesis stands up to many tests, and successfully makes predictions, then
it can eventually be promoted to the status of theory.  But the testing continues.  

By trying to find holes in the hypothesis/theory, you are conducting science with more integrity, with less chance of a bias slipping into the testing.

Ask yourself the question:  Can God's existence be tested or falsified?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:12 PM on October 17, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm with dijonaise here. To me an evolutionist can only say "i think the Bible is cool". Never "i believe in the bible".

Orion, i believe dj said creationism shouldn't be treated as a science, and acknowledged the impossibility of such a test. I distinctly recall that he doesn't think it should be taught in a science room.

by EntwickelnCollin:
Are you also hypocritical for making choices about your life while claiming God can influence your life at any time?
Or praying while believing He has a minute plan. But i still don't know if dijonaise believes that. Do you, dj?

by orion:
Did you know that many of the founding fathers of this country - Washington, Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Monroe, Franklin, etc - were primarily Deists.  Go look it up.
Nevermind about being a theist. He was talking about the Bible and christianity.

Being a theist wasn't a real election back then, i think. I mean, what was the alternative? You see a world full of life, and consciousness, and intelligence, and nothing to account for it all. A Creator would have been my first guess.

But the biblical account for creation would have been my last guess. xD



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:52 PM on October 17, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, I see.  Thanks for pointing that out to me.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:16 PM on October 17, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 3:11 PM on October 17, 2008 :
OK...OK...OK...i was probably hasty in my remark, but it still seems a little difficult to me for a person to hold a copy of 'origins' in one hand while holding a bible in the other.


It shouldn't, at least to the educated.

i know - i know...believing in evolution doesn't necessarily have an affect on believing in a diety, but by what i've noticed by discussing with people in this forum is that, to the evolutionist, the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale full of inconsistencies, and shouldn't be taken seriously.


Just because some people who accept evidence based evolution deride the bible doesn't mean all do so. Furthermore, many Christians view the Bible as a moral book, not a scientific one.

with that said,  it seems that for one to say that discussing intelligent design isn't a legit thing to do, while saying that he is a bible-believing christian...well...i'm sorry, but that still seems a little hypocritical to me.


Because? Intelligent Design is animism. Why would we teach that as science?


 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 10:59 PM on October 17, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 5:52 PM on October 17, 2008 :
I'm with dijonaise here. To me an evolutionist can only say "i think the Bible is cool". Never "i believe in the bible".

Orion, i believe dj said creationism shouldn't be treated as a science, and acknowledged the impossibility of such a test. I distinctly recall that he doesn't think it should be taught in a science room.

by EntwickelnCollin:
Are you also hypocritical for making choices about your life while claiming God can influence your life at any time?
Or praying while believing He has a minute plan. But i still don't know if dijonaise believes that. Do you, dj?

by orion:
Did you know that many of the founding fathers of this country - Washington, Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Monroe, Franklin, etc - were primarily Deists.  Go look it up.
Nevermind about being a theist. He was talking about the Bible and christianity.

Being a theist wasn't a real election back then, i think. I mean, what was the alternative? You see a world full of life, and consciousness, and intelligence, and nothing to account for it all. A Creator would have been my first guess.

But the biblical account for creation would have been my last guess. xD




true - i really don't think that we can justifiably "teach" creation in schools.  as a matter of fact - i think that the church and any government subsidized organization such as public school should be as seperate as possible.  i agree with the premise that we can't just call creationism "creation science" due to the fact that there is no science behind proving god's existence.  however, i DO feel like we creationists can be justified in using modern scientific methods to "prove" such things as the possibility of things mentioned in scripture (i.e the flood).  
this thread, however, isn't dedicated to that specific discussion.

the only point that i was making is the fact that obama (and...really - politicians in general) tend to call themselves christians in order to be more popular with the middle class, but really - its impossible for them to actually BE christians and still hold close to nonchristian beliefs.
obama, for instance, in order to try to get as far away from being called a muslim or terrorist, has loudly proclaimed being a bible believing christian who has attended a christian church for years and years.  but really,  the truth probably is that he thinks the bible is just a pretty good moral compass and nothing more.  but he would certainly never say that because it would cost
him too many votes.  



(Edited by dijonaise 10/18/2008 at 10:01 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 8:42 PM on October 18, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child:
Quote from dijonaise:
OK...OK...OK...i was probably hasty in my remark, but it still seems a little difficult to me for a person to hold a copy of 'origins' in one hand while holding a bible in the other.

It shouldn't, at least to the educated.
The "at least to the educated" part goes between parenthesis.

What dijonaise is saying is perfectly clear and reasonable to me. And he's educated. And so am i.

Just because some people who accept evidence based evolution deride the bible doesn't mean all do so. Furthermore, many Christians view the Bible as a moral book, not a scientific one.
If the facts are wrong, it's not the word of God. If it's not the word of God it's the word of men. And men could be as wrong about the morals as they could be about the facts.

If they don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, how are they christians? Can you please define "christian"?

He who says he's a christian: There are lots.
He who believes that the Bible and the Gospels are the word of God: There are sevaral.
He who takes heed of Jesus' teachings: There are some.
He who follows all of the biblical precepts: There are none.
He who says the Bible should be taken just a moral guide: These are the ones that usually didn't even read the Bible.

Weather they have read it or not, they have NO FAITH in it. And weather that's reasonable or not, they shouldn't call themselves "christians".

I'm with dj a hundred percent on this one.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:12 PM on October 18, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:12 PM on October 18, 2008 :

If the facts are wrong, it's not the word of God. If it's not the word of God it's the word of men. And men could be as wrong about the morals as they could be about the facts.


Not quite. Why would God explain things in a way that we could not understand? That's foolish and rather idiotic. Two traits not commonly associated with Gods. God would explain things to people at the time in a way they could understand. Try teach the pygmies of Africa modern physics and biology. That's a futile effort. In the same fashion, trying to do so to ignorant, nomadic Israelites would have been a futile effort. And does God care more about facts rather then morals and ethics?  

If they don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, how are they christians? Can you please define "christian"?


One who follows Christ. And I never said they didn't believe it wasn't the word of God. They understand why God wouldn't give us the literal, true facts so early on.

They view the bible as how God wanted us to live our lives; Morally, Noble and Just. They don't view the Bible as how God wants us to see science. Therefore, accepting evolution and the Bible is not a problem.

And there's a good reason to accept natural origins if you're a Christian. Literal Creationism logically results in a liar God in the context of the world we see today. Now, if I was a Christian, I'd have a real problem with that.



 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 04:08 AM on October 19, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So he metaphorically made two humans in the metaphoric Garden of Eden (where animals -metaphoric or literal?- got metaphorically along), who screwed up, multiplied later and he metaphorically drowned them with metaphoric water (except a few humans who built a metaphoric ark with precise dimensions)? And then made a rainbow which was the metaphorical first? And then literally multiplied again (wait, can they multiply literally when they were drowned metaphorically??), built a metaphoric tower, and their languages were confused in a metaphoric instant?

His stopping the Sun would be a metaphor of His stopping Earth, or of a coincidental equinox?

What if his existing-at-all was a metaphor?

So His explaining things in a way we could not understand would be foolish and rather idiotic... Well, there's plenty of confusion about what He said. So your statement makes it even worse (let alone that "Morally, Noble and Just" could include rape, plundering, killing, stoning people to death, impregnating your daughters, impregnating your brother's widow, killing people of other religions -Exodus 22:20- even if they are your friends or family -Deuteronomy 13:6-10- and stuff like that).

But hey! A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing (Romans 8:33)!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:21 AM on October 20, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.