TimeChaser

[quote name='Vicky'][SIZE=1]And why? For one, they're in the East - to say they become Westernised is pretty much implying the West is better. Let them have their own way of life and leave them alone (I'm not saying the country is amazing in its violence and war, but for that to change they don't have to be Westernised).[/size][/QUOTE] There is a problem with that, though, because of the violence towards women and anyone who doesn't conform or dares to question things. Humans rights transcend what their religion and laws tell them is OK to do to other people. We're stuck in a tenuous situation, because we want everyone to enjoy the freedom of the rights they deserve as human beings, but their culture is very insular and xenophobic of what is on the "outside".

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Should ID be taught in school? Yes. Should it be taught in science class? Yes. And here is why: The fundamentals of secular humanism (aka standard atheism. Not including pagan atheism here) commit a hypocritical argument from ignorance towards their own claims, residing on certain philosophies admittedly because they have simply willed it so. These philosophies are naturalism, humanism, and uniformity. Each of which, are unprovable, because each one must decide that the initial conditions are true in order to prove that the initial conditions are true. When confronted, it is stated that it is better to assume the inexistance of the outside forces (begs the question) because it makes things simpler. This, of course, is an argument for ignorance. It is also the standard for all atheistic sciences. To claim the superiority of naturalism and humanism, or to deny the presence of other arguments creates the "church of secularism"; a concept that has been understood for hundreds of years yet is willingly ignored by many of the masses today. Indeed, humanism and naturalism stand on no firmer ground than the majority of serious religions. But it is a point of incredibly great importance in life, so if you are to teach one (which is the foundations of the majority of sciences), then you to teach the other to be fair. Or, you are to teach neither, and only briefly mention them in the beginning of science classes to show that there is no favor.[/QUOTE] I disagree. It is not scientific in any way. It makes claims for the supernatural, which has nothing to do with science. Besides, there is nothing to teach except the bare idea that "Things are too complex, therefore there must be some grand designer." There have been no critical, scientific studies within the Intelligent Design community. There have been no major papers that have been published in scientific journals and peer reviewed. The scientific community has not embraced this idea, for the reasons I have stated. Even the ID proponents admit they don't have anything yet that backs up their claims. If you propose the theory that there is an intelligent designer, you cannot go beyond that assumption. There is nothing tangible to test. Scientific experimentation cannot be applied. This is where religion encroaches, because then you simply have to accept on faith the idea of a designer. I humbly suggest you, and everyone, read a couple of articles I have saved on this subject: [URL="http://www.otakuboards.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=823295"][U]This article answers 15 oft asked creationist/ID questions with scientific answers.[/U][/URL] [URL="http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html"][U]This one has short essays by several ID proponents, each one followed by a scientific essay in response.[/U][/URL]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Good to know you misunderstand my position. If you love someone of the same gender, you are not homosexual. You are free to do that however much you please. You are only homosexual if you want to have sex with someone of the same gender, and that is about sex, not love. An "intimate relationship" is not a sexual relationship. Only a sexual relationship is a sexual relationship, regardless of the gender. A heterosexual sexual relationship is still a sexual relationship. You are still assuming that love = sex, when they are separate things. Sex being used to express love is completely arbitrary, just like using a flower to express love, or tickets to the next Yankees game. Does love make it easier to fulfill the existential satisfaction and pathological desire of a sexual relationship? Yes, it does. However, that is under the given that a relationship is sexual, and still remains completely arbitrary.[/QUOTE] So then you are denying that two people of the same gender can be "in love" with each other, as in romantic love? You are quantifying love only in an affection way that does not include romance. And sex is now pathological? That is, if two people of the same gender who are "in love" want to have sex, then it is only a matter of pathology, because they can't be in love in the first place?

[quote name='outlawstar69']Something I'm curious about, here: When did the messy argument begin where you had to take sides, between those who advocated science, and those who advocated religion? I suppose it goes beyond ID vs Creationism, but haven't there a few (long) period of time when places of religious study, and places of scientific research went hand in hand? In so far as the thread's topic goes, I would consider myself to be religious, but also a man of science - growing up, I never saw them as mutually exclusive. So long as [I]something[/I] is driving the urge to learn, I'm all for it. Be it the desire to simply Know the answers because of curiosity or the furthering of the Scientific Process, or in reverence to how a universe like ours could have been created by an omnipotent being (I think it's pretty cool, anyway), and seeking to understand that.[/QUOTE] Well, to point out something I think you made a little mistake in stating (whether it was an accident or not): Intelligent Design [I]is[/I] creationism, just repackaged to try and sell as science. It concedes that evolution [I]may[/I] happen, but that everything is still too complex to require anything other than an omniscient designer. Intelligent Design makes claims for the supernatural, which is not a part of science, and therefore disqualifies it from being taught as science. At best, you could teach it in a theology class.

[quote name='Vicky'][SIZE=1]Back to the topic and away from the dungeon - I just watched a documentary on evolution. What does everyone think to apes showing some form of morals (I can pull up the evidence if you like)? That kind of links them to mankind, somewhat.[/size][/QUOTE] I'd be very interested. :) I remember seeing an episode of NOVA about primate intelligence, but that's different from morals.

[quote name='Nathan'][FONT="Arial"]I'm currently listening to [B]Mother Earth[/B] by Within Temptation. Just something I ran into while browsing online. Not sure if I like it or not. It does have a nice clean sound to it. The vocals are pleasant to listen to, which is always a plus.[/FONT][/QUOTE] Ah, Within Temptation, great band. I love 'em. :animesmil At the moment I'm listening to the album [B]Enigmatic: Calling[/B] by [B]Pagan's Mind[/B], a Norwegian power/progressive metal band whose lyrics are heavily influenced by the [I]Stargate[/I] film and the theories of "ancient astronauts".

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']Now you're changing the thread into a debate over religion. I'll participate until we're forced to get back on the subject at hand. In your Opinion it may be more noble and positive. But really think about what you're saing, you're trying to force an opinion as fact. No it's not more noble, and just because you feel that you are in control of your own fate doesn't help keep an open mind. That can be spun right back around at you saying that people who don't believe that there is an end and they will have to answer for their sins are the ones who perpetuate "evil" in the world. They're the ones who strive to control/destroy. They're the ones whose lives are ran by greed, lust, thinking once they're gone they're gone makes them step on anyone who gets in the way. So while YOU man feel that everyone should feel the way you do, you can't honestly say that its the right way to think for everyone.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to debate religion. What I'm saying is that we should not fight fundamentalism with fundamentalism. It should not be an ingredient in our foreign policy. I am not greedy. I am not lustful. I am not evil. What I am, is someone who believes in reason. A reasoned approach to any conflict is preferable. That doesn't mean people won't die, because they have and they will continue to do so, it's a sad fact. But trying to limit casualties as much as we can is better than going in and wiping everyone out.

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Actually I'm not, and those people who honestly believe it are also known as the Radical Christian Right. And while I don't agree with many of their policies, I don't think they're wrong about everything. However you're also operating under the belief that you know what is healthy for a country. Look how well it's working for Iran![/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] If you're going to use Iran as an example, I wouldn't call that healthy. I'd call it locked in a fanatical, fundamentalist stranglehold. That's something we don't need, and I hope we never have the fundamentalists of this country in a position of absolute power. And is it really healthy to operate under the belief that the world will absolutely end sometime soon, just because some religious text says so? I don't believe in prophecy or being able to foretell the future. I think that is pseudoscience and no one who claims to have has ever done it. Isn't it much more healthy to look toward the horizon of the future with an open mind and hope and expectation that we are in control of our own fate, and we should do what we can to preserve this world for the generations to come? That is much more noble and positive.

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]And that someone being me I guess I'll answer that. No, we wouldn't bring about the end of the world, God would. And we'd then perish in fire and death because He did promise to not use water the second time around, which I guess was sweet of Him when you think about it. And I seriously doubt humanity will ever be consciously evolved enough to find an ultimate solution.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] This attitude frankly scares me. We need to go forward in our foreign policy without the expectation that "The Rapture" or some other equivalent will happen. Believing these things is not healthy for this country, because if you expect the world to end and God to come again, why even bother trying to secure our future? I hope you are being facetious again. Even if you are, that attitude still scares me, because some people honestly believe it.

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]For that to work you'd need to demolish the wall that exists between intelligence gathering organizations and law enforcement. We also sometimes call this Jamie Gorelick's wall. Just ask Bill Clinton about it. He'll be happy to not tell you about the times we could've gotten Bin Laden if he had taken a break from the freaking blow jobs and simply gone for it. But anyway intelligence can work, when its hands aren't tied by a squeamish politician looking to cover his own enormous rear end.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I can actually agree with you on this. The various organizations do need to stop sniping at each other and actually work together so we can have a cohesive and more efficient intelligence network.

[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Sometimes I think "accurate intelligence" is an oxymoron. The CIA failed to capture Osama bin Laden not once, but two times whilst he was in our reach. Honestly, the CIA hasn't proved itself useful in the hunt for Osama bin Laden at all; I'm not that enthusiastic about leaving the fight against terrorism in the hands of such a harum-scarum organization. I'll probably be kidnapped and never heard of again after this. :animeswea[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] Well it is obvious that the intelligence organizations need a shake-up first. Doesn't mean they can't work at all, though. :)

[quote name='Esther'][SIZE="1"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]No matter what, I'll always fail to believe "peaceful negotiation" can be successfully achieved with radical Muslim terrorist groups. I don't understand the logic behind people thinking we can sit down and have tea with those who want to destroy our way of life. Unless we start wearing burqas and start praying 5 times a day, the radical Muslim terrorist groups will continue to wage their "holy war" on us. At the end of the day they're still going to hate us and our way of life. Sorry to rain on the Peace in The Middle East! parade. In my opinion, military intervention is the only way the United States can win against all those dirty little terrorist groups. [/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE] I have no illusions that everyone can sit down and talk things out civilly. BUT, I still think we can go in and surgically take out these groups using accurate intelligence. Trundling all over the place in tanks isn't really working.

[quote name='Vicky'][size=1]Was the Face of Evil where the Doctor had his face carved in stone/a mountain? It's a long time since I watched Tom Baker! The Deadly Assassin has gotta be the best one of his series though. Martha was probably best but Donna? Nah, David had no one to bounce off - the last series wasn't as good as the others methinks. Story had some potential, I reckon, but otherwise... it was just Catherine Tate. No one can take her seriously XD. Oh and erm before I get in trouble for being off topic... welcome everyone![/size][/QUOTE] Yes, his face was on the mountain. There was a godlike computer with a split personality and half of it thought it was the Doctor. And he met the warrior girl, Leela. I don't Martha's potential was used well enough. She didn't get much chance to apply her medical skills. But anyway, yes, welcome to all! :animesmil

[quote name='Vicky'][size=1]*Narrows eyes* Are you a fan of the oldie-series or the new one? Choose wisely! Not that I would honestly hurt you for choosing one or the other (though I might call you an infidel again =p ), I was just curious considering I'm an avid oldies fan. You know, with all the cheap effects - gotta love the beginnings! (I do love the new series though. David Tennant's a star - lost his appeal in the last season though because he had a obviously crap co-star).[/size][/QUOTE] I grew up watching the show since I was 4 years old, watching it on PBS. :animesmil I remember "The Face of Evil" with Tom Baker was my very first story. I've been a fan for 23 years now. I adore the classic series. (Although I disagree about Donna - I liked her way better than Rose :smirk: )

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Practically proven? And you're right, we can't see it happening over millions of years. I also believe humans weren't around millions of years ago to even notice. And yes, mutation and natural selection occur in nature around us, but I don't believe that that isn't the hand of God at work. And as far as theory and science go, don't preach to me about what constitutes theory. I know my Biology and I know how complicated the human body is. I find it difficult to believe that all of this happened as a happy sort of accident. Too many things could've gone wrong in the mutation process. I also believe that cross breeding between races like Chinese and German, Black and Asian, can result in interesting genetic changes. I can see the science in that. But until you bring me a creature that's the 'great throwback' or capture for me another Piltdown man I'll just happily disagree with the theory of evolution as it's preached to us in school as proven fact.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Well until we see it happen, it will never be 100% proven. But it's more proven than supernatural explanations, which can't even be tested or verified. Plus, all mutations are "wrong" in the first place. A mutation is when the genetics isn't sequenced properly. These mistakes are coupled with the environmental factors to develop adaptations. Not all adaptations succeed, but some do. And Piltdown Man was long ago exposed as a hoax, so that isn't a valid exampled of a "missing link".

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Casualty on a massive scale is how you win a war. Because these countries do not allow free speech, a war of ideas can not be fought on any level. And it's not perpetuating a holy war. It's ending one. The U.S. has yet to declare a fatwah on the Middle East, but Islam as a political vehicle for terrorism has declared a fatwah on the U.S. and Israel in particular. It's the job of any nation who cares about freedoms for women, gays, and so on and so forth to combat terrorism. But how we do it would have to be either completely subtle [and thus difficult to the point of almost being impossible] or completely devastating. Propose a working solution and then I'll be interested in considering if that's even a possibility. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] We should all work together on a solution that can avoid the kind of bloodshed you seem to be advocating. I know other people believe as you do, but I sincerely hope your view does not become the overwhelmingly accepted one.

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]It's a theory. Theoretical. And since we can't reproduce that whole 'making new species' thing I'm pretty sure it's as of yet unproven. In the same way we can't disprove it, just like God and the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause. Oh tragedy.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] To repeat what I posted in the previous page about the word "theory" in the context of science: [B]What many people mistake is the definition of the word "theory" as it applies to science. "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable."[/B] Evolution has practically been proven except that we can't see it happening as it takes place over millions of years. But we do know mutation and environmental conditions act in tandem with natural selection to produce change in life forms.

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Did you catch the facetiousness of it all? No? That's okay. I only mentioned it once. And besides, it's not as extreme because I'm not motivated by religious mandate or some cracked belief that if I bring about Armageddon the 13th Imam will show up to save us all. I also don't think publicly hanging homosexuals is a good idea, nor do I support the killing of a woman or girl who is raped. So it's not just as extreme so much as it's a cold and completely logical thing to do if you think about it. I never said it was intelligent, but neither is the vain hope that someday Jews and Christians will find common ground with people who have repeatedly stated in word and in deed that they want to kill. Us. All. For all you know, this is motivated by survivalism. And if we manage to stamp all of them out in a series of quick attacks, they won't have a chance to strike back. Peace through superior firepower and all that. Besides, a pre-emptive strike means never having to say you're sorry.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I got that you were kind of being facetious to some degree. I realize conflict will not be solved without blood on either side, that's a sad given. But I think casualty on a massive scale is just sickening. We don't need a to perpetuate a holy war from our own point of view, let alone theirs.

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Bomb the excrement out of every country except for Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Israel and then go about our business is my plan. Iran has a people ready for revolution but afraid of being mowed down with machine guns and tactile nuclear devices. The Palestinians are a grossly misled people that are the virtual Muslim lepers of the world which is why no other country wants them for anything except cannon fodder for Israli missiles so they can be trotted out as an example of why Israel should die. Saudi Arabia can burn for all I care after the way they've treated the women of the land. Read the story "Princess" by one of their former queens if you don't believe me. Syria is where I believe the WMDs we gave Saddam 16 months to hide are located. Israel has a right to exist and considering the map of the middle east and how little space they take up, it wouldn't KILL people to just accept it and move on. But people will kill for it anyway. In short, "Kill 'em all. And then let God sort them out." I say this facetiously though because I can honestly think of no other real solution that isn't just pie in the sky wishy washy hopehopehopewithnosubstance. Biblically speaking I believe the same thing as a lot of other people who care to study ancient history. The sons of Isaac will make war with the sons of Ishmael until the end of the world.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Why would you want that? That's just as extreme a view as they have over on their side. Extremism to fight extremism is not very intelligent solution.

I definitely think something should be done to combat terrorist groups, but an open military war is not the way to do it, as we are seeing first-hand The terrorist groups need to be thought of as an international criminal conspiracy. It would take a coordinated global intelligence/policing effort to deal with them.

[quote name='Anime_girl5']If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys? wouldnt they be humans like us? Charels Darwin ( the creator of evolution) said on his death bed that he was wrong, and he wanted to back all that he said.[/QUOTE] I'm not out to be mean to anyone so don't worry. :animesmil However, I can refute these two claims. 1) Darwin never said we came from monkeys. He said humans and other primates are descended from a common ancestor. The whole monkeys thing was a smear campaign his critics used to attack him. 2) Darwin did not recant evolution on his deathbed. Taken from Wiki: "The “Lady Hope Story”, published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted back to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were refuted by Darwin’s children and have been dismissed as false by historians. His daughter, Henrietta, who was at his deathbed, said that he did not convert to Christianity." Oh, and he did not "create" evolution. He discovered the process through his observations and research.

[quote name='Sabrina'][FONT="Tahoma"]Intelligent Design (and what I've been taught could be different than what's up to be stuffed into schools) is suppose to indicate someone who already knows all of the science, as it were, behind how things would have been created. It's not meant to put an end to it.[/FONT][/QUOTE] And who would that be? Nobody has 100% knowledge of everything. The point I attempted to make was there is a clear difference between the supernatural and the natural. Science uncovers what drives the natural world by observation and consistent experimentation. Intelligent Design cannot do this, because there is no way to test the claim that a supreme being designed anything. Once you've made a claim for the supernatural, you can't go any further, therefore your exploration stops without successfully proving anything.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Well . . . not to be insensitive, or anything, but the only privilege us heteros have is that . . . well, that the parts fit. And really, that's what sexual [I]inter[/I]course is. Not me bein' discriminatory there; biology's doin' that for me. Now, they can make do with [I]outer[/I]course....[/FONT][/QUOTE] Which goes right back to my claim that sex is also a means to express intimate love. It is not only a matter of biological compatibility in order to produce offspring, it is also a pleasurable thing that people can engage in to express intimacy. Whether they stick things in or not doesn't really matter.

I haven't read every page of this thread, so forgive me if I repeat what others have already said. I just want to put for my own take on this debate. I had known for many years about the debate between creationism and science, but I wasn't really made fully aware of this new push for "Intelligent Design" until I saw an episode of [URL="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html"]NOVA[/URL] on PBS about the 2004 court battle in Dover, Pennsylvania over whether Intelligent Design could be included in the high school science curriculum. Although my family is religious, I also come from a scientific background: my dad is a science teacher, and I was always encouraged to study things on my own and I've avidly watched documentaries and science programs science childhood. I stand firmly in the science camp, because science deals with the physical world, what we can study and measure and test rigorously. Intelligent Design is creationism repackaged and given backing by people who can't honestly claim to be scientists. What's amazing about Darwin's discovery is that it was made in 19th century. He was able to see that life evolves and changes, without ever knowing the exact process by which it does. Many scientific discoveries since then, especially genetics, have proven over and over how right Darwin was. His theory has withstood over 150 years of scientific scrutiny and still remains. What many people mistake is the definition of the word "theory" as it applies to science. "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable." - Wikipedia. Therefore, Darwin's "theory" doesn't mean Darwin's "guess". Also, if you argue for Intelligent Design, you find yourself in a conundrum: who designed the designer? Evolution proves that beings of significant intelligence like us take millions of years to develop, and we don't even have omnipotent powers. If everything is too complex to exist without a designer, then that design is too complex itself to have existed without being designed. In that case, you enter an infinite regress that goes backwards forever and has no beginning. Intelligent Design does not provide clear answers. It basically says, "Everything we see in nature was designed by some omniscient being (God), and we cannot hope to understand the mind of this creator." This explains nothing and grinds scientific investigation to a halt. One thing I've found that helps explain the intricacies of the debate is the book [B]Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement[/B], which is a compilation of essays on the subject submitted by several psychologists, biologists, physicists, etc.

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]......what?! First, I think it's safe to say we're all (ALL) in agreement that sex can be an expression of love. However, as today's society proves tenfold, sex is not [I]exclusively[/I] an expression of love. To some it is merely a pastime, to others a means of earning a living. So then to deny [I]love[/I] is to deny human nature. In a parallel example (not exactly the same, but close), I know of a great many people who hug as a way of greeting. The action for them shows that they are happy to see the other person and enjoy being around them. It's an expression of friendship. By contrast, I don't hug really at all, even with the one-armed version. I might say it a lot online, but that again is to express the same pleasure as above, which I can't use my face or body language to do. In reality, the action means a lot more to me than just simple happiness, and I only use it with family members, and when parting with very close friends. The person I hug most is my youngest sister, just because she's my sister. I don't hug friends when I see them. Most of the time I don't even touch them. The same can be said for sex. I don't engage in it because I am reserving it to express an extremely powerful emotion at some point in the future. Just like hugging shows a person not that I care, but [I]how much[/I] I care, so sex does not show that I love, but [I]how much[/I] I love. There is no denial of sex. There is only reservation. And to 'reserve' sex is not to deny love, but simply to find another means of expressing love.[/FONT][/QUOTE] Let me clarify my point. What Crimson Spider seems to be saying is that gay people can be free to express love, so long as they stop there and don't go further into having sex. This is what I mean by "human nature": Everyone has the right to choose how they express love for their intimate partner, including sexually. It shouldn't matter what the gender of both individuals is. They can be free to express that love in whatever way they choose, just as much as anyone who is heterosexual. To say something to the effect of: "Anyone can love whomever they choose, but only straight people are allowed to take that next step and express intimate love sexually," is to invoke 'Heterosexual Privilege'.