Comments

sorry. What I was trying to reiterate was that online forums are a horrible medium for discussion. I apoligize for the personal attack on ian. A strawman argument is an argument derived from listening to the worst representative of the other side of the argument. My use of cacaphonous language was quite tactless though. My pointing out that the creation of god argument was a faulty one is because I despise fallicous reasoning (such as the strawman argument). It just so happens that theism has more instances of that form of reasoning against it because naturalism is in school textbooks, and thus most people are familiar with it. This is because of the fine line between the sciences of natural selection, mutation, and speciation, and the religion of purely natural causes. I was merely suggesting that one should read some form of theistic literature before one points out the arguments against it. Also, I assure you that my tone was not intended to be condenscending. That really is how I talk. This would not be the first time that I have unintentionally insulted someone... and I hate wombats.

I don't see the point in increasing federal support for science. This is a capitalist country. Everyone has different opinions about what is important. If you think that these programs are worth your hard-earned cash, then start a fundraiser for them. The fact is that when these programs are something that is worth while, they get funding from the private sector. I thinm that the following things are all that the federal government should have their noses in. Military (you can't have a private military. That would basically be gang warfare.) Helping the environment (at least until it becomes profitable to do so. then the free market can take over.) Schooling (some eager kids wouldn't go to school if they felt they needed to aid their family more. Mandatory government funded schools give those kids a reason to attend.) Keeping us from killing each other. (this is what you call a "law") And VERY FEW other things. The reason that there isn't as much emphasis on science today is not because of inaction or action on the government's part. We have one of the most divers nations in the world. We can't expect a large portion of our society to have the exact same interests. Besides, the culture as a whole frowns on the intellectual and smiles upon the jock. The real problem is the CULTURE. There basically two ways to get the public reinterested. One way is to start some sort of convoluted space race with China. ( it turns out that we had a working rocket and a functional sattelite before Russia. We just didn't fund the right technology. The purpose of the sattelite was to establish space as international territory and Russia did that for us.) The second way to get the majority involved in education is to elect a grand honarable chairman to preside over the People's Republic of America

There are people who site the Bible as proof for the Bible. There are many people who believe in science because they are told the science encompasses all. A large portion of people who have a strong opinion seem to be stubbornly unopen to critic. I have an opinion on the matter, but I will not state it. Research has shown that simple fact correction merely reinforces faulty reasoning. However, I will state that this is NOT an argument of religion vs. science. Science covers only that which can be empirically proven, and therefore is not at all related to the basis of religion. After all, it is absolutely impossible to scientificly prove that George Washington was the 1st president of the United States. It is really an argument over wether the driving force in the universe was some kind of intelligent being or random forces acting on chance. As i have stated, fact correction merely reinforces fallicious reasoning. Instead I will try to present the arguments as I have heard them from competent individuals on each side. A:There is no proof that god exists, so ther is no reason to believe in him. I could say that there is a flying noodle monster. Just because there is no proof against it doesn't mean that it exists. T:The proof is that there is design. If you look at a clock, you wouldn't say that it was formed by the wind and the rain. You would say that there is a designer. Also, since it appears that the universe has design, you have the burden of proof by suggesting that the universe was created by random chance. Besides, since the universe is expanding, it shows that there must have been a begining. That which has a begining must have a beginer. Therefore the universe must of had a beginer. This beginer would have to exist outside the realm ofspace and time in order to begin the universe. That is where God comes in. A:We merely see a design because we exist, it appears that the conditions for life are perfectly met. If we hadn't have come into existence, then there wouldn'tappear to be design. There could be an infinite number of universes. ours just happens to be the one with life. The universe could merely be just one in a series of collaspsing and expanding universes, each with their own physics. Life is so complex because the more elegant and efficient crreatures survived.The universe doesn't have to be designed to appear designed, therefore you have the burden of proof. T:But the universe itself has many qualities that if changed at all, would cease to allow any existence of anything. The entire universe is specifically designed for life. The proposal that there aare multiple universes is impossible to test because of its very essence. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that there are multiple universes. Since there is evidence of a designer, suggesting that there isn't a designer is clearly the more absurd argument. (Evidence doesn't have to be scientific. It is commonly historical or based on logic.) Okay, I don't want to write more than two questions per side on each topic so moving on: T:How in the world can evolution occur? I have heard many forms of evolution used interchangeably so that there seems to be no concrete definition. What i am refering to is masive speciatation. Natural selection allows those with the most beneficial gametic traits to survive. However, it does not create new structures. It merely selects from existing ones. Meanwhile, mutation is basically a copying error. Almost all mutations are harmful, and the majority of nonharmful mutations are nuetral. I understand that given enough time, something like a smaller forehead could develop, but it seems that mutations merely changeexisting structures. They don't create new information. A:You are right in saying that these things have to occur over time. Evolutionisn't a line. It is a squiggle. Some things may arise that are slightly different from an existing structure. Eventually the environment changes, and the animal must change as well. A new structure then forms that is slightly different from the second one. As millions of these changes acrue, new structures or qualities arise. Anexcellentexample is the evolution that occurs in bacteria every day that wield antibacterial resitant strains. T:The bacterial mutations are effective because antibiotics work by inhibiting one of the structures necessary for reproduction or survival. The mutations, using laymens terms, screw up these structures. Since the structures are already faulty, the substance that would usually spell the germ's demise doesn't work. This leaves normally inferior bacteria as the dominant lifeform in the affected environment. If the healthy bacteria were reintroduced, then they would most likely outcompete the mutants for resources. What I meant with my earlier question was that some structures simply couldn't evolve gradually. Take a mousetrap for example. If you don't have the whole thing, then it is usless. You can't expect to catch a mouse with a spring and a block of wood. You can't expect to have an optic cell with just a membrane and and a mitochondrian. You can simplify almost any large structure, but eventually you may get down to something that is simply too complex to arise in one mutation, yet too simple to be brokendown into more simple structures. In Darwin's day, the cell was unknown. They thougth that the cell was simply a blob of goo with limitless potential. Now that we have a better understanding of of DNA, we can see that there isn't limitless potential for natural selection. Darwin himself admitted that if a structure was found that couldn't develop with small gradual changes was found, then his theory would be moot. I simply don't see how some structures like the flaggelum or sexual reproduction could have developed. I can see why (how they are beneficial), but not how (how the structures actually would have arisen.) A:The structures arise because they are beneficial (as you said). The fact that these structures are incredibly complex doesn't mean that they couldn't arise eventually. Anything is possible given enough time. T:So a dishwasher could form out of a cloud of metalic dust? A:You're speaking out of turn. T:Sorry. I'm just tired. A:yeah, me too Well, that's all for now. The point of doing both sides is not to avoid offending someone. It is because fact correctionputs someone on the defensive.This causes them to stop thinking clearly and resist logical arguments. Trying to ACCURATELY depict both sides can challenge the reader to think openly. Therefore it is a muchmoreeffective persuasion tool in my opinion.