Which is why I cleverly called it a theory, see. I'm covering my bases here.

Which is why I cleverly called it a theory, see. I'm covering my bases here.

I pretty much agree with Felegund. Can't think of much more to add. Creationism isn't science at any level - if learning it is mandatory at any level, it's wrong. An elective, sure. 'Religious Ideas' or something like that. Otherwise... gogo Galilei Galileo (taught science, ignored religious nonsense). [QUOTE]That senence is so hypocritical...What evidence is there of the big bang theory? its so ridiculous its not even funy. Were the scientists there when it happened? No, you have no evidence of the big bang theory, so stop screwing with ppl's minds by saying theres no proof of God, but a bunch of proof of the big bang. I think if scientists want to be able to share their idea about how the universe startes, then so should the christians. Little kids are influenced easily, and ppl are filling their little minds with the belief that there was a big bang, yet they don't have any proof. Ether they should just be taught at home, and not at school, or they should hear other ideas about how the universe was started.[/QUOTE] No proof, sure.. But infinitely more evidence than for Creationism (because anything except zero is infinitely times bigger than zero!). You know how light works, right? Not instant, all that? Maybe the term 'speed of light' might have hinted to you that light isn't instant-traveling. Well, see, scientists really wanted to find out how the universe started, see, so they created this big big tube and put some glass and maybe even some other stuff in there to let them see far away! Anyway, this little tube sees light from far far far away, and because light doesn't travel instantly (or rather, because it travels, rather than teleporting), you literally see into the past! Well, for the last decades, scientists have been saying that what they see is evidence (if not conclusive) of the big bang, and since there were no real disagreements from other scientists, we think they might actually be right.

I pretty much agree with Felegund. Can't think of much more to add. Creationism isn't science at any level - if learning it is mandatory at any level, it's wrong. An elective, sure. 'Religious Ideas' or something like that. Otherwise... gogo Galilei Galileo (taught science, ignored religious nonsense).

Quote

That senence is so hypocritical...What evidence is there of the big bang theory? its so ridiculous its not even funy. Were the scientists there when it happened? No, you have no evidence of the big bang theory, so stop screwing with ppl's minds by saying theres no proof of God, but a bunch of proof of the big bang. I think if scientists want to be able to share their idea about how the universe startes, then so should the christians. Little kids are influenced easily, and ppl are filling their little minds with the belief that there was a big bang, yet they don't have any proof. Ether they should just be taught at home, and not at school, or they should hear other ideas about how the universe was started.

No proof, sure.. But infinitely more evidence than for Creationism (because anything except zero is infinitely times bigger than zero!). You know how light works, right? Not instant, all that? Maybe the term 'speed of light' might have hinted to you that light isn't instant-traveling. Well, see, scientists really wanted to find out how the universe started, see, so they created this big big tube and put some glass and maybe even some other stuff in there to let them see far away! Anyway, this little tube sees light from far far far away, and because light doesn't travel instantly (or rather, because it travels, rather than teleporting), you literally see into the past! Well, for the last decades, scientists have been saying that what they see is evidence (if not conclusive) of the big bang, and since there were no real disagreements from other scientists, we think they might actually be right.

Thanks to a law passed in the supreme court Evolution cannot be taught in schools to be more than something that a bunch of people came up with. However, religion is the same way. But is is ironic, because the USA is built upon very religious ideas. We have "under God" in the pledge of alliegence.

Thanks to a law passed in the supreme court Evolution cannot be taught in schools to be more than something that a bunch of people came up with. However, religion is the same way. But is is ironic, because the USA is built upon very religious ideas. We have "under God" in the pledge of alliegence.

[QUOTE]Because his first statement (#1) clearly shows that he believes evidence supports the big bang opposed to creationism, so there is good evidence that he supports atheism. That was really just an assumption on my behalf, I think he's advocating atheism and so I posted that, and if not, then he can tell me so.[/QUOTE] Saying there is hard evidence supporting the big bang while not supporting creationism is just a mere observation based on the facts, which are correct. It does not imply atheism at all. Atheism is [B]not [/B]the opposite of creationism. There are many theists who support evolution. [QUOTE]What you are doing is you are isolating parts of his post to suggest things. He posted a topic about creationism and that's significant to what he means, for example: I can easily take phrases from your sentences and make it sound like you are a racist.[/QUOTE] No, what I'm doing is reading your post thoroughly and looking at what you quoted and then basing my response off of that. It's your fault if you are replying to statement Y when quoting statement Z. Even when taking his whole post into account, however, my point still stands. [QUOTE] That's not my argument. I'm saying that if he is to speak against creationism with the logic he is using, the same logic could be turned the other way anyways. Even if he is not talking about Atheism, this still applies because he's not arguing against it either, he's only attack creationism.[/QUOTE] That's great if you could turn his argument the other way to go against atheism, but too bad he's not advocating that. As he is not talking about atheism, what you said does not still apply. His argument is that any type of religious belief shouldn't be pressed upon others in schools, whether it's theism or atheism. Therefore you can't twist his argument about pressing the belief of creationism on others the other way around to apply to not teaching either of them at all. [QUOTE]I have already explained to you how siding with people without providing your own argument is bad posting.[/QUOTE] Committing a bunch of logical fallacies is bad arguing.

Quote

Because his first statement (#1) clearly shows that he believes evidence supports the big bang opposed to creationism, so there is good evidence that he supports atheism.
That was really just an assumption on my behalf, I think he's advocating atheism and so I posted that, and if not, then he can tell me so.

Saying there is hard evidence supporting the big bang while not supporting creationism is just a mere observation based on the facts, which are correct. It does not imply atheism at all. Atheism is not the opposite of creationism. There are many theists who support evolution.

Quote

What you are doing is you are isolating parts of his post to suggest things. He posted a topic about creationism and that's significant to what he means, for example: I can easily take phrases from your sentences and make it sound like you are a racist.

No, what I'm doing is reading your post thoroughly and looking at what you quoted and then basing my response off of that. It's your fault if you are replying to statement Y when quoting statement Z. Even when taking his whole post into account, however, my point still stands.

Quote

That's not my argument. I'm saying that if he is to speak against creationism with the logic he is using, the same logic could be turned the other way anyways. Even if he is not talking about Atheism, this still applies because he's not arguing against it either, he's only attack creationism.

That's great if you could turn his argument the other way to go against atheism, but too bad he's not advocating that. As he is not talking about atheism, what you said does not still apply. His argument is that any type of religious belief shouldn't be pressed upon others in schools, whether it's theism or atheism. Therefore you can't twist his argument about pressing the belief of creationism on others the other way around to apply to not teaching either of them at all.

Quote

I have already explained to you how siding with people without providing your own argument is bad posting.

Committing a bunch of logical fallacies is bad arguing.

[QUOTE]Thanks for "putting words in my mouth" there, PwnPirate. Apparently, just because I'm against teaching any sort of religious curriculum in a science classroom makes me support teaching atheism. I said respect people's beliefs and don't try to preach to them in a public school. For #1, I said science supports those two theories, so that is an argument to teach them in a science classroom.[/QUOTE] Ok then [QUOTE] Saying there is hard evidence supporting the big bang while not supporting creationism is just a mere observation based on the facts, which are correct. It does not imply atheism at all. Atheism is not the opposite of creationism. There are many theists who support evolution.[/QUOTE] Atheism is the opposite of Theism, which in turn is what creationism is. [QUOTE]That's great if you could turn his argument the other way to go against atheism, but too bad he's not advocating that. As he is not talking about atheism, what you said does not still apply. His argument is that any type of religious belief shouldn't be pressed upon others in schools, whether it's theism or atheism. Therefore you can't twist his argument about pressing the belief of creationism on others the other way around to apply to not teaching either of them at all. [/QUOTE] He is pressing against creationism, but without also pressing against atheism, one can assume he supports it. As I have mentioned in my first post, my assumption is just based on what I read from his post, and if it's not what he meant, then he can just say so and disregard what I am arguing anyways. [QUOTE] No, what I'm doing is reading your post thoroughly and looking at what you quoted and then basing my response off of that. It's your fault if you are replying to statement Y when quoting statement Z.[/QUOTE] Some inductive reasoning is safe to make when you are dealing with people in a forum. If I sound like I am referring to a point that is outside of a quote, it would only be reasonable to assume that I was referring to something else, You don't have to process a mechanical error like a computer does. [QUOTE]Committing a bunch of logical fallacies is bad arguing.[/QUOTE] Even if I were to post logical fallacies all day, if it pertains to forum etiquette then it is merely my position and I'm fine to post it and you are fine to argue against it. It doesn't matter if you think it's bad [I]arguing[/I], it matters if it is bad [I]posting[/I].

Quote

Thanks for "putting words in my mouth" there, PwnPirate. Apparently, just because I'm against teaching any sort of religious curriculum in a science classroom makes me support teaching atheism. I said respect people's beliefs and don't try to preach to them in a public school. For #1, I said science supports those two theories, so that is an argument to teach them in a science classroom.

Ok then

Quote

Saying there is hard evidence supporting the big bang while not supporting creationism is just a mere observation based on the facts, which are correct. It does not imply atheism at all. Atheism is not the opposite of creationism. There are many theists who support evolution.

Atheism is the opposite of Theism, which in turn is what creationism is.

Quote

That's great if you could turn his argument the other way to go against atheism, but too bad he's not advocating that. As he is not talking about atheism, what you said does not still apply. His argument is that any type of religious belief shouldn't be pressed upon others in schools, whether it's theism or atheism. Therefore you can't twist his argument about pressing the belief of creationism on others the other way around to apply to not teaching either of them at all.

He is pressing against creationism, but without also pressing against atheism, one can assume he supports it. As I have mentioned in my first post, my assumption is just based on what I read from his post, and if it's not what he meant, then he can just say so and disregard what I am arguing anyways.

Quote

No, what I'm doing is reading your post thoroughly and looking at what you quoted and then basing my response off of that. It's your fault if you are replying to statement Y when quoting statement Z.

Some inductive reasoning is safe to make when you are dealing with people in a forum. If I sound like I am referring to a point that is outside of a quote, it would only be reasonable to assume that I was referring to something else, You don't have to process a mechanical error like a computer does.

Quote

Committing a bunch of logical fallacies is bad arguing.

Even if I were to post logical fallacies all day, if it pertains to forum etiquette then it is merely my position and I'm fine to post it and you are fine to argue against it. It doesn't matter if you think it's bad arguing, it matters if it is bad posting.

[QUOTE]4. The separation of church and state protects both America and the religions that have taken root here. [B]Just because you believe in something neither makes you correct in your assumptions nor someone else's beliefs incorrect, and nobody should be allowed to dictate what everyone has to believe in[/B]. I think that it's a big enough sin that parents are allowed to instill in their children concrete ideas about religions, regardless of whether they believe in athiesm, Christianity, or the flying spaghetti monster. A spiritual journey is very personal, but I've no problem with parents bestowing upon their children a solid set of morals.[/QUOTE] You (pwnpirate) seem to be ignoring the most important part of his post, just in order to suit your arguements. As in, you like taking part of peoples arguements out of context to the whole, and then make your arguements against it. But in doing so your arguements become almost pointless. I acknowledge when you make good points, I don't know why you are so against admitting to anyone making good points against you. [QUOTE]He is pressing against creationism, but without also pressing against atheism, one can assume he supports it[/QUOTE] No, no, no, you can't. First of all, [B]he isn't pressing against creationism[/B]. He is pressing [B]against its teaching in public schools.[/B] The latter is the not the opposite of atheism. Even if you mean to say by pressing against the teaching of creationism, and not against the teaching of atheism... it still doesn't work. A good example is escaping me as it is getting late here... but I don't think I should have to explain that just because someone is [B]against[/B] one thing, they are automatically [B]for[/B] the "opposite" of that thing (giving you atheism as opposite of creationism). They could easily be against both, and I don't know why you assume things so easily. [QUOTE]Even if I were to post logical fallacies all day, if it pertains to forum etiquette then it is merely my position and I'm fine to post it and you are fine to argue against it. It doesn't matter if you think it's bad arguing, it matters if it is bad posting.[/QUOTE] He wasn't saying that you were breaking any rules, he was simply giving you a dig towards your bad arguing seeing as how you want to do it to other people so consistently about other things; the example being the quote he took from you.

Quote

4. The separation of church and state protects both America and the religions that have taken root here. Just because you believe in something neither makes you correct in your assumptions nor someone else's beliefs incorrect, and nobody should be allowed to dictate what everyone has to believe in. I think that it's a big enough sin that parents are allowed to instill in their children concrete ideas about religions, regardless of whether they believe in athiesm, Christianity, or the flying spaghetti monster. A spiritual journey is very personal, but I've no problem with parents bestowing upon their children a solid set of morals.

You (pwnpirate) seem to be ignoring the most important part of his post, just in order to suit your arguements. As in, you like taking part of peoples arguements out of context to the whole, and then make your arguements against it. But in doing so your arguements become almost pointless. I acknowledge when you make good points, I don't know why you are so against admitting to anyone making good points against you.

Quote

He is pressing against creationism, but without also pressing against atheism, one can assume he supports it

No, no, no, you can't. First of all, he isn't pressing against creationism. He is pressing against its teaching in public schools. The latter is the not the opposite of atheism. Even if you mean to say by pressing against the teaching of creationism, and not against the teaching of atheism... it still doesn't work. A good example is escaping me as it is getting late here... but I don't think I should have to explain that just because someone is against one thing, they are automatically for the "opposite" of that thing (giving you atheism as opposite of creationism). They could easily be against both, and I don't know why you assume things so easily.

Quote

Even if I were to post logical fallacies all day, if it pertains to forum etiquette then it is merely my position and I'm fine to post it and you are fine to argue against it. It doesn't matter if you think it's bad arguing, it matters if it is bad posting.

He wasn't saying that you were breaking any rules, he was simply giving you a dig towards your bad arguing seeing as how you want to do it to other people so consistently about other things; the example being the quote he took from you.

[quote=PwnPirate]Atheism is the opposite of Theism, which in turn is what creationism is. [/quote] Fallacy of Composition [quote=PwnPirate]He is pressing against creationism, but without also pressing against atheism, one can assume he supports it. As I have mentioned in my first post, my assumption is just based on what I read from his post, and if it's not what he meant, then he can just say so and disregard what I am arguing anyways. [/quote] Bifurcation aka False dilemma [quote=PwnPirate]Some inductive reasoning is safe to make when you are dealing with people in a forum. If I sound like I am referring to a point that is outside of a quote, it would only be reasonable to assume that I was referring to something else, You don't have to process a mechanical error like a computer does. [/quote] Audiatur et altera pars

Quote from PwnPirate

Atheism is the opposite of Theism, which in turn is what creationism is.

Fallacy of Composition

Quote from PwnPirate

He is pressing against creationism, but without also pressing against atheism, one can assume he supports it. As I have mentioned in my first post, my assumption is just based on what I read from his post, and if it's not what he meant, then he can just say so and disregard what I am arguing anyways.

Bifurcation aka False dilemma

Quote from PwnPirate

Some inductive reasoning is safe to make when you are dealing with people in a forum. If I sound like I am referring to a point that is outside of a quote, it would only be reasonable to assume that I was referring to something else, You don't have to process a mechanical error like a computer does.

Audiatur et altera pars

[QUOTE]No, no, no, you can't. First of all, he isn't pressing against creationism. He is pressing against its teaching in public schools. The latter is the not the opposite of atheism. Even if you mean to say by pressing against the teaching of creationism, and not against the teaching of atheism... it still doesn't work. A good example is escaping me as it is getting late here... but I don't think I should have to explain that just because someone is against one thing, they are automatically for the "opposite" of that thing (giving you atheism as opposite of creationism). They could easily be against both, and I don't know why you assume things so easily.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] You (pwnpirate) seem to be ignoring the most important part of his post, just in order to suit your arguements. As in, you like taking part of peoples arguements out of context to the whole, and then make your arguements against it. But in doing so your arguements become almost pointless. I acknowledge when you make good points, I don't know why you are so against admitting to anyone making good points against you. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]He wasn't saying that you were breaking any rules, he was simply giving you a dig towards your bad arguing seeing as how you want to do it to other people so consistently about other things; the example being the quote he took from you.[/QUOTE] No, I just made an assumption that he invalidated, it was a mechanical error. Devilesk has only made points that my argument was unneeded, and not any actual points against it, so there's not much to say about it anymore.

Quote

No, no, no, you can't. First of all, he isn't pressing against creationism. He is pressing against its teaching in public schools. The latter is the not the opposite of atheism. Even if you mean to say by pressing against the teaching of creationism, and not against the teaching of atheism... it still doesn't work. A good example is escaping me as it is getting late here... but I don't think I should have to explain that just because someone is against one thing, they are automatically for the "opposite" of that thing (giving you atheism as opposite of creationism). They could easily be against both, and I don't know why you assume things so easily.

Quote

You (pwnpirate) seem to be ignoring the most important part of his post, just in order to suit your arguements. As in, you like taking part of peoples arguements out of context to the whole, and then make your arguements against it. But in doing so your arguements become almost pointless. I acknowledge when you make good points, I don't know why you are so against admitting to anyone making good points against you.

Quote

He wasn't saying that you were breaking any rules, he was simply giving you a dig towards your bad arguing seeing as how you want to do it to other people so consistently about other things; the example being the quote he took from you.

No, I just made an assumption that he invalidated, it was a mechanical error. Devilesk has only made points that my argument was unneeded, and not any actual points against it, so there's not much to say about it anymore.

[QUOTE]Audiatur et altera pars[/QUOTE] Not a logical fallacy, it is only borderline, so it doesn't mean anything if you state this alone. [QUOTE]Bifurcation aka False dilemma[/QUOTE] I've stated in my later posts that he could come anytime and refute what I interpreted of his post, which means this doesn't apply either. [QUOTE] Fallacy of Composition[/QUOTE] You've had your chance to state what exactly the opposite of Creationism is, but you haven't, so even this doesn't apply until you have. It's not Fallacy of Composition if the statement is true. Eg. A wheel moves, a bicycle has wheels, a bicycle moves. I wasn't implying that one leads to another when I said that, I was saying three separate correct sentences.

Quote

Audiatur et altera pars

Not a logical fallacy, it is only borderline, so it doesn't mean anything if you state this alone.

Quote

Bifurcation aka False dilemma

I've stated in my later posts that he could come anytime and refute what I interpreted of his post, which means this doesn't apply either.

Quote

Fallacy of Composition

You've had your chance to state what exactly the opposite of Creationism is, but you haven't, so even this doesn't apply until you have.
It's not Fallacy of Composition if the statement is true.
Eg. A wheel moves, a bicycle has wheels, a bicycle moves.
I wasn't implying that one leads to another when I said that, I was saying three separate correct sentences.

Are you going to make any points against not teaching creationism in schools? You can continue to beat around the bush, but I've no idea what you're getting at.

Are you going to make any points against not teaching creationism in schools? You can continue to beat around the bush, but I've no idea what you're getting at.

[QUOTE]No, I just made an assumption that he invalidated, it was a mechanical error. Devilesk has only made points that my argument was unneeded, and not any actual points against it, so there's not much to say about it anymore.[/QUOTE] I don't need to refute your arguments in this topic, because they are about something completely different and irrelevant to this discussion, and not only that your arguments are unsound as well. Apparently Felagund is equally annoyed by your poor posting tactics. [QUOTE]Are you going to make any points against not teaching creationism in schools? You can continue to beat around the bush, but I've no idea what you're getting at.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Not a logical fallacy, it is only borderline, so it doesn't mean anything if you state this alone.[/QUOTE] It means your arguments and posts are irrelevant, off topic, and useless. [QUOTE]I've stated in my later posts that he could come anytime and refute what I interpreted of his post, which means this doesn't apply either.[/QUOTE] All of your interpretations and assumptions are always completely out of left field. Just stop posting if you're going to do that, because this is what happens: [QUOTE]Thanks for "putting words in my mouth" there, PwnPirate. Apparently, just because I'm against teaching any sort of religious curriculum in a science classroom makes me support teaching atheism. I said respect people's beliefs and don't try to preach to them in a public school. For #1, I said science supports those two theories, so that is an argument to teach them in a science classroom. On the other hand, I don't want to reiterate all of my points, so you can always go back and reread my first post yourself.[/QUOTE] That means your first post was useless and everything else which resulted from that. [QUOTE]You've had your chance to state what exactly the opposite of Creationism is, but you haven't, so even this doesn't apply until you have. It's not Fallacy of Composition if the statement is true. Eg. A wheel moves, a bicycle has wheels, a bicycle moves. I wasn't implying that one leads to another when I said that, I was saying three separate correct sentences.[/QUOTE] Not stating what the opposite of creationism is doesn't matter (even though evolution is clearly the opposing theory) because your statement is false. There are theists who believe in evolution. You can be opposed to creationism and not be an atheist. Evolution does not support, need, or state anything about the existence/nonexistence of a god. It's funny how you're trying to establish Atheism as the opposite of creationism (through fallacy of composition), and then using that to argue that being against the teaching of creationism means being for the teaching of atheism (an example of bifurcation). Also note that even if the former were true, the latter would still be false.

Quote

No, I just made an assumption that he invalidated, it was a mechanical error. Devilesk has only made points that my argument was unneeded, and not any actual points against it, so there's not much to say about it anymore.

I don't need to refute your arguments in this topic, because they are about something completely different and irrelevant to this discussion, and not only that your arguments are unsound as well.

Apparently Felagund is equally annoyed by your poor posting tactics.

Quote

Are you going to make any points against not teaching creationism in schools? You can continue to beat around the bush, but I've no idea what you're getting at.

Quote

Not a logical fallacy, it is only borderline, so it doesn't mean anything if you state this alone.

It means your arguments and posts are irrelevant, off topic, and useless.

Quote

I've stated in my later posts that he could come anytime and refute what I interpreted of his post, which means this doesn't apply either.

All of your interpretations and assumptions are always completely out of left field. Just stop posting if you're going to do that, because this is what happens:

Quote

Thanks for "putting words in my mouth" there, PwnPirate. Apparently, just because I'm against teaching any sort of religious curriculum in a science classroom makes me support teaching atheism. I said respect people's beliefs and don't try to preach to them in a public school. For #1, I said science supports those two theories, so that is an argument to teach them in a science classroom. On the other hand, I don't want to reiterate all of my points, so you can always go back and reread my first post yourself.

That means your first post was useless and everything else which resulted from that.

Quote

You've had your chance to state what exactly the opposite of Creationism is, but you haven't, so even this doesn't apply until you have.
It's not Fallacy of Composition if the statement is true.
Eg. A wheel moves, a bicycle has wheels, a bicycle moves.
I wasn't implying that one leads to another when I said that, I was saying three separate correct sentences.

Not stating what the opposite of creationism is doesn't matter (even though evolution is clearly the opposing theory) because your statement is false. There are theists who believe in evolution. You can be opposed to creationism and not be an atheist. Evolution does not support, need, or state anything about the existence/nonexistence of a god.

It's funny how you're trying to establish Atheism as the opposite of creationism (through fallacy of composition), and then using that to argue that being against the teaching of creationism means being for the teaching of atheism (an example of bifurcation). Also note that even if the former were true, the latter would still be false.

What is so hard about multi-quote? :p Also, in my personal opinion, creationism should not be taught in school. Students should only be informed about what can actually be studied, and if the parents want to add "Oh by the way, god did it all." at home, then that's their choice. [quote=devilesk][QUOTE]Thanks to a law passed in the supreme court Evolution cannot be taught in schools to be more than something that a bunch of people came up with. However, religion is the same way. But is is ironic, because the USA is built upon very religious ideas. We have "under God" in the pledge of alliegence.[/QUOTE] Could you elaborate on this law about Evolution. What do you mean by nothing more than something that a bunch of people came up with. What are specific examples of what can't be taught.[/quote] [quote=devilesk][quote=Redhead][quote=Felagund] 1. Nobody can prove the existence of a higher being. On the other hand, hard scientific evidence supports evolutionary claims and the big bang theory. [/quote] That senence is so hypocritical...What evidence is there of the big bang theory? its so ridiculous its not even funy. Were the scientists there when it happened? No, you have no evidence of the big bang theory, so stop screwing with ppl's minds by saying theres no proof of God, but a bunch of proof of the big bang. I think if scientists want to be able to share their idea about how the universe startes, then so should the christians. Little kids are influenced easily, and ppl are filling their little minds with the belief that there was a big bang, yet they don't have any proof. Ether they should just be taught at home, and not at school, or they should hear other ideas about how the universe was started.[/quote] http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html Humans weren't around when dinosaurs were alive so I guess there's no evidence of them either. Oh wait there are, fossils.[/quote] [quote=devilesk][quote=Mini Moose 2707][quote=Felagund]No proof? Feel free to read: [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang]link[/URL] Hubble's observations, the expanding universe, etc. etc. Although it is just a theory, it is the most scientifically sound theory we have.[/quote] It provides more and more evidence and makes the argument stronger and stronger. However, it does not definitely "PROVE" it. That's what an inductive argument is. :P[/quote] As Drunken said, the difference between religion and science is that science is progressive. Science goes with the best explanation they have based on the current evidence they have. They create models and see if they work. They are constantly trying to gather more information. If they find their current theories are wrong, they simply revise them or come up with new ones. Just a note, I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying Moose.[/quote] [quote=devilesk][QUOTE]How can you just say: Creationism is absurd? Blah. blah, blah science. Science this science that. Sometimes you must go with your beliefs. How can you distinctly know that you love someone? That is not a measurable feeling. That cannot be proved or disproved by science. The same goes for religion, or the lack there of.[/QUOTE] Love exists just as religion exists. Both can be proven scientifically just based off of simple observation. You don't need to be able to measure something to say that it exists. Now after establishing that, I fail to see any remaining point to your post.[/quote]

What is so hard about multi-quote?

Also, in my personal opinion, creationism should not be taught in school. Students should only be informed about what can actually be studied, and if the parents want to add "Oh by the way, god did it all." at home, then that's their choice.

Quote from devilesk

Quote

Thanks to a law passed in the supreme court Evolution cannot be taught in schools to be more than something that a bunch of people came up with. However, religion is the same way. But is is ironic, because the USA is built upon very religious ideas. We have "under God" in the pledge of alliegence.

Could you elaborate on this law about Evolution. What do you mean by nothing more than something that a bunch of people came up with. What are specific examples of what can't be taught.

Quote from devilesk

Quote from Redhead

Quote from Felagund

1. Nobody can prove the existence of a higher being. On the other hand, hard scientific evidence supports evolutionary claims and the big bang theory.

That senence is so hypocritical...What evidence is there of the big bang theory? its so ridiculous its not even funy. Were the scientists there when it happened? No, you have no evidence of the big bang theory, so stop screwing with ppl's minds by saying theres no proof of God, but a bunch of proof of the big bang. I think if scientists want to be able to share their idea about how the universe startes, then so should the christians. Little kids are influenced easily, and ppl are filling their little minds with the belief that there was a big bang, yet they don't have any proof. Ether they should just be taught at home, and not at school, or they should hear other ideas about how the universe was started.

http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html

Humans weren't around when dinosaurs were alive so I guess there's no evidence of them either. Oh wait there are, fossils.

Quote from devilesk

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Quote from Felagund

No proof? Feel free to read: link

Hubble's observations, the expanding universe, etc. etc. Although it is just a theory, it is the most scientifically sound theory we have.

It provides more and more evidence and makes the argument stronger and stronger. However, it does not definitely "PROVE" it. That's what an inductive argument is.

As Drunken said, the difference between religion and science is that science is progressive. Science goes with the best explanation they have based on the current evidence they have. They create models and see if they work. They are constantly trying to gather more information. If they find their current theories are wrong, they simply revise them or come up with new ones.

Just a note, I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying Moose.

Quote from devilesk

Quote

How can you just say: Creationism is absurd? Blah. blah, blah science. Science this science that. Sometimes you must go with your beliefs. How can you distinctly know that you love someone? That is not a measurable feeling. That cannot be proved or disproved by science. The same goes for religion, or the lack there of.

Love exists just as religion exists. Both can be proven scientifically just based off of simple observation. You don't need to be able to measure something to say that it exists.

Now after establishing that, I fail to see any remaining point to your post.

[quote=Doodan]What is so hard about multi-quote? :p [/quote] Nothing is hard about multiquote. All you do is select the multiquote button for the people's posts you want to quote and then hit reply. However, I didn't respond to those posts at the same time, and it's easier to just hit the quote button to make a new reply instead of editing. I also don't see it as a real issue anyway since each post is a completely separate response to an entirely different person and point and are not related to eachother at all, unlike if I was to create a new post just to edit in information about a preceding post. There wouldn't be much difference if it was 4 posts made by me responding to 4 different people than if it was 4 posts made by different people responding to 4 different people. And if I can't multiple post responding to separate things, whats the point of allowing it? A restriction should be implemented then, I've seen it done before. I've also read the rules and haven't found anything against double posting. I think your course of action was too strong and could have been handled better. Now you've just made those posts harder to read. If you had told me about it I could have just first edited them into the first post and then you could have deleted the remaining ones. Now if I seem very critical of your actions, it's because of this smiley :P Also, I believe IP/Moose should have a tiny bit of responsibility in shaping this situation's outcome, because I believe mods should have the ability to edit other's posts or merge them or whatever. The little moderation options that you have is their fault and lack of coding. If I was looking to spam posts for post count I would just go to null where it counts. [QUOTE]Also, in my personal opinion, creationism should not be taught in school. Students should only be informed about what can actually be studied, and if the parents want to add "Oh by the way, god did it all." at home, then that's their choice.[/QUOTE] I share your same stance, but I dislike your argument. Creationism can be [I]studied[/I].

Quote from Doodan

What is so hard about multi-quote?

Nothing is hard about multiquote. All you do is select the multiquote button for the people's posts you want to quote and then hit reply.

However, I didn't respond to those posts at the same time, and it's easier to just hit the quote button to make a new reply instead of editing.

I also don't see it as a real issue anyway since each post is a completely separate response to an entirely different person and point and are not related to eachother at all, unlike if I was to create a new post just to edit in information about a preceding post. There wouldn't be much difference if it was 4 posts made by me responding to 4 different people than if it was 4 posts made by different people responding to 4 different people. And if I can't multiple post responding to separate things, whats the point of allowing it? A restriction should be implemented then, I've seen it done before.

I've also read the rules and haven't found anything against double posting. I think your course of action was too strong and could have been handled better. Now you've just made those posts harder to read. If you had told me about it I could have just first edited them into the first post and then you could have deleted the remaining ones. Now if I seem very critical of your actions, it's because of this smiley Also, I believe IP/Moose should have a tiny bit of responsibility in shaping this situation's outcome, because I believe mods should have the ability to edit other's posts or merge them or whatever. The little moderation options that you have is their fault and lack of coding.

If I was looking to spam posts for post count I would just go to null where it counts.

Quote

Also, in my personal opinion, creationism should not be taught in school. Students should only be informed about what can actually be studied, and if the parents want to add "Oh by the way, god did it all." at home, then that's their choice.

I share your same stance, but I dislike your argument. Creationism can be studied.

Creationism (and I might as well throw in religion), [I]can[/I] be studied, I'm not disputing that. But in order to study something, one must hold it at "arm's length" and make an objective analysis of it. That's something that you can't ask a lot of religious people to do when it comes to their beliefs. If Creationism were mandatory in schools, then they wouldn't actually be studying Creationism itself. From what I understand about Creationism (and I'll admit that I haven't looked into it too deeply), a science class would operate under an assumption that the student is not supposed to dispute. My stance is that you can't teach a class in which you should question everything with a religious undertone that is not supposed to be questioned. If the parents really want their children to believe that god's behind it all, then they can still enforce that on their own time. By the way, I brought up what you said about deleting multiple posts in the staff forum, and other staff was in agreement with you. Deleting consecutive posts by the same member that remain on topic is pointless. So I won't be doing that anymore.

Creationism (and I might as well throw in religion), can be studied, I'm not disputing that. But in order to study something, one must hold it at "arm's length" and make an objective analysis of it. That's something that you can't ask a lot of religious people to do when it comes to their beliefs. If Creationism were mandatory in schools, then they wouldn't actually be studying Creationism itself. From what I understand about Creationism (and I'll admit that I haven't looked into it too deeply), a science class would operate under an assumption that the student is not supposed to dispute. My stance is that you can't teach a class in which you should question everything with a religious undertone that is not supposed to be questioned. If the parents really want their children to believe that god's behind it all, then they can still enforce that on their own time.

By the way, I brought up what you said about deleting multiple posts in the staff forum, and other staff was in agreement with you. Deleting consecutive posts by the same member that remain on topic is pointless. So I won't be doing that anymore.

Hell, I go to a Catholic school and they don't even teach us creationism.

Hell, I go to a Catholic school and they don't even teach us creationism.

[quote=Syphon]Hell, I go to a Catholic school and they don't even teach us creationism.[/quote] I've never heard of a catholic school that teaches creationism. And there suppose to be those die hard ones.

Quote from Syphon

Hell, I go to a Catholic school and they don't even teach us creationism.

I've never heard of a catholic school that teaches creationism. And there suppose to be those die hard ones.

[quote=Doodan]Creationism (and I might as well throw in religion), [I]can[/I] be studied, I'm not disputing that. But in order to study something, one must hold it at "arm's length" and make an objective analysis of it. That's something that you can't ask a lot of religious people to do when it comes to their beliefs. If Creationism were mandatory in schools, then they wouldn't actually be studying Creationism itself. From what I understand about Creationism (and I'll admit that I haven't looked into it too deeply), a science class would operate under an assumption that the student is not supposed to dispute. My stance is that you can't teach a class in which you should question everything with a religious undertone that is not supposed to be questioned. If the parents really want their children to believe that god's behind it all, then they can still enforce that on their own time. [/quote] I like your point at the end. I agree that's one of the differences between science and religion. In science you are always questioning something and it is always encouraged. In religion really the only way something established will change is if God were to appear and dispute it himself. ^^ [quote] By the way, I brought up what you said about deleting multiple posts in the staff forum, and other staff was in agreement with you. Deleting consecutive posts by the same member that remain on topic is pointless. So I won't be doing that anymore.[/quote] Thanks, Doodan. I love you. :) [QUOTE]I've never heard of a catholic school that teaches creationism. And there suppose to be those die hard ones.[/QUOTE] they're*

Quote from Doodan

Creationism (and I might as well throw in religion), can be studied, I'm not disputing that. But in order to study something, one must hold it at "arm's length" and make an objective analysis of it. That's something that you can't ask a lot of religious people to do when it comes to their beliefs. If Creationism were mandatory in schools, then they wouldn't actually be studying Creationism itself. From what I understand about Creationism (and I'll admit that I haven't looked into it too deeply), a science class would operate under an assumption that the student is not supposed to dispute. My stance is that you can't teach a class in which you should question everything with a religious undertone that is not supposed to be questioned. If the parents really want their children to believe that god's behind it all, then they can still enforce that on their own time.

I like your point at the end. I agree that's one of the differences between science and religion. In science you are always questioning something and it is always encouraged. In religion really the only way something established will change is if God were to appear and dispute it himself.

Quote

By the way, I brought up what you said about deleting multiple posts in the staff forum, and other staff was in agreement with you. Deleting consecutive posts by the same member that remain on topic is pointless. So I won't be doing that anymore.

Thanks, Doodan. I love you.

Quote

I've never heard of a catholic school that teaches creationism. And there suppose to be those die hard ones.

they're*

[QUOTE]It means your arguments and posts are irrelevant, off topic, and useless. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Apparently Felagund is equally annoyed by your poor posting tactics.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]That means your first post was useless and everything else which resulted from that.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] All of your interpretations and assumptions are always completely out of left field. Just stop posting if you're going to do that, because this is what happens:[/QUOTE] You and Dapperdan keep attacking this point, even though I have already said more than once that I misunderstood and came to the wrong conclusion, which makes your arguments "irrelevant, off topic, and useless." Also, you fail to understand that I didn't post all of that as some sort of underground strategy, I just misread his post. There are no "tactics" in forum discussion, only reasoning. [QUOTE] Not stating what the opposite of creationism is doesn't matter (even though evolution is clearly the opposing theory) because your statement is false. There are theists who believe in evolution. You can be opp