-Demosthenes- Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 So they can't coexist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Depends who you ask. Actually I think my brain backfired in reply #77, I may have to come back to that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Okay, thanks. Because creationalism and evolution as I understand them can coexist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 You are being evolved today just like your kids will evolve and your grandparents have evolved. Evolution takes time, but it HAPPENS. The fact you don't notice it at the PERCISE moment doesn't mean it doesn't exist. *You* are evolving. In relation to your environment, otherwise you'd not have lived. By the way, I always thought creationism is more than "god created men" -- it's the genesis story of god creating the universe in seven days and so on. If that's creationism, it doesn't fit evolution at all. I might be taking creationism wrong here. About religion's DEBATE: Be surprise, but I've debated with many people about religion, but those debates were scientifical in basis, although most of the people were religious -- which means that tehy gave me non-tautological answers to my questions. Those debates have evolved to phylosophical debates that were EXTREMELY benefitial to both sides and really really interresting. They required both sides to NOT base itself on tautological axioms. Since religion has a HUGE problem with not being relied on tautology (since it's mostly tautological in it's essence) then there are not many religious people that can actually handle such a debate. I never argue about religion. I debate. If you "argue" about a religion then you probably do that with someone that won't listen to basic logic. Not *my* logic, but basic rules of logic of a DISCUSSION. Meaning - speaking with logical statements, that are built on logical axioms and so on. I've been given many ideas and phylosophies about god, religion, faith and belief in relations to science and in a non tautological way. So debating a religion is possible, it just requires different tools. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 3, 2004 Author Share Posted March 3, 2004 It's just hard for me to be completely scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I've noticed.. still, if you want to argue in a science forum, you have to at least try and use logic. Tautological statements, while being accepted in a religious forum with love and care, are unaccepted here.. that's why people keep nagging you about logic and accuracy. As I've said before - as an agnostic I tend to sometimes disagree with a theory many many scientists believe in as a fact. That doesn't mean I argue with tautology, I try to show other sides and other ideas, and either convince others I'm right, or being convinced I'm looking at it the wrong way. There are times, also, that I just stay with disagreeing. It happens. The debate is still interresting in most cases, though, because it's intellectual and makes you think and question things. If you don't use scientific reasoning and logic, SPECIALLY in this type of forum, don't be shocked when no one agrees. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 Thanks, but can we talk about religious stuff in the religious forum? I started this thread (my screen name used to be eisteintheory) and to tell you the truth I was excited that someone posted on it again, can we move a little more on topic to the thread plz? We argue, sry debate on relidion in the relgion and philociphy forum. Plus I've been sent off topic warnings before, a lot of times actually, so I'd like to move a little towards the topic of the thread, unless you don't then we could do whatever you want, what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 WE are a SCIENCE forum. We talk about *religion and phylosophy* in the science forum so we could be phylosophic about RELIGION. It's a science forum, mate. Not a religious forum, and not even a GENERAL forum. SCIENCE means logic. Even in the "religion" part of the SCIENCE forum. About your thread, I believe I've posted an answer to one of the topics in it. In any case, as you probably might have seen, I don't believe there was ANY SORT of intelligent thinking behind the creation of the universe. I believe most odds are this was a fluke of nature we call "life", and it was also done by a huge combination of accidental incidents. We - being created by those accidents, which only survived because we FIT OUR WORLD - like we should have because of evolutionary process - define our existance as "beautiful creation".. Doesn't necessarily means we're right about this. It only means we tend to be narcisitic and egotistical in our thinking. Most probably, We're not the center of the universe, we're not even the center of our own solar system, not to mention our galaxy. So no, I dont think intelligent thinking was behind this. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 "So no, I dont think intelligent thinking was behind this." Okay, I guess that we have nothing left to talk about that has to do with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now