|
Religion threads are banned on TL. Further derailment will be met with immediate permanent bans. |
On June 13 2011 01:37 hicks91 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 01:33 StifSokSamurai wrote:On June 13 2011 01:29 Ejohrik wrote:
I don't feel this is the thread to discuss religion or beliefs. Agreed I jumped to this page to see how the voting was going and was disappointed in the most recent thread responders. Why? Like it or not this is part of the tournament and if she makes a comment we are allowed to respond to it in a polite way. We as team liquid members represent a fair ole chunk of her support base, and she may like the feedback perhaps? I was only going to vote in this in the first place for anna, it is a horribly sexist and backwards competition anyway.
I don't know much about it, but how is it sexist? (I'm actually asking)
As for it being backwards, I agree 
|
On June 12 2011 23:54 butchji wrote:
Do Americans honestly still believe that Evolution is something you choose "believing" or not. And when you choose the not that you cease to be a Christian?
(No troll honestly want to know)
A lot of them do and it makes me want to either rage or sit down and cry every time I encounter it. Some of the more conservative states are also debating and in some cases legislating that creationism (intelligent design) be taught in schools while evolution is stressed as a theory, it's asinine. I will say that it's a very regional thing though, what happens in a Texas school isn't likely to happen in a Massachusetts school.
I understand that Anna is probably trying to offend the least amount of people with her answers and play to the middle, but I just can't support someone in any capacity who endorses intelligent design. It just offends me too much as a rational person.
|
intelligent design.. can't tell if serious.. Anna? Geoff? I suddenly feel sick.
|
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure.
|
On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure.
i get the feeling you don't understand how the word 'theory' is used in scientific discourse, no offense.
|
On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure.
ya gravity's still a theroy. we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure. also the principles that make my car run... just a theroy. can't say if correct. I believe in intelligent combustion. Its a theroy 2 -- maybe not scientific okay, but still a theroy
|
On June 13 2011 01:57 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure. i get the feeling you don't understand how the word 'theory' is used in scientific discourse, no offense.
I actually have a science background, so i know exactly how the word "theory" is used.
|
On June 13 2011 00:09 SushilS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:10 Humdrum wrote:
Sorry Anna, I voted for Georgia out of pure instinct. I don't know what happened. Pretty sure I just blacked out from hotness. Seriously, she shouldn't be allowed to walk near traffic to prevent a chain of car accidents.
That is a babe. She makes me feel kinda funny, like when we used to climb the rope in gym class.
She's magically babelicious.
She tested very high on the stroke-ability scale.
She's a fox. In French she would be called "la renarde" and she would be hunted with only her cunning to protect her.
She's a robo-babe. In Latin she would be called "babia majora".
If she were a president she would be Baberaham Lincoln. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
haha I agree
|
On June 13 2011 01:58 tmonet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure. ya gravity's still a theroy. we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure. also the principles that make my car run... just a theroy. can't say if correct. I believe in intelligent combustion. Its a theroy 2 -- maybe not scientific okay, but still a theroy
Gravity is not a theory, it's an experimental phenomenon.
|
On June 13 2011 01:58 tmonet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure. ya gravity's still a theroy. we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure. also the principles that make my car run... just a theroy. can't say if correct. I believe in intelligent combustion. Its a theroy 2 -- maybe not scientific okay, but still a theroy
Wow learn to spell if you are going to attempt to be condescending.
|
On June 13 2011 01:54 Samhax wrote:
Even if you think Anna is wrong with his intelligent design. Darwin's theory of evolution is still a THEORY, it's not set in stone. Nobody has proven, this theory is 100% correct, this is just the best scientific explanation that we actually have about life, maybe a new scientist will come with something better, we don't know yet.
So believing that Darwin's theory is 100% correct is not better than believing in intelligent design. So relax people don't be blinded by your self belief about life and Darwin, no one actually can say how life developp in earth with 100% accuracy.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory but Darwin still a Theory too, maybe more serious ok, but still a theory, and we can't say if it's 100% correct for sure.
If you're going to be technical about it, no scientific theory can be proven "100%". The only field where you can talk about definite "proof" is mathematics. Even the fact that the Earth orbits the sun cannot be scientifically "proven" 100%, but no one in their right mind would dispute it.
Also, when scientists talk about a theory, they don't mean it in the sense that it is used in common language. They use it to mean a collection of ideas and statements, backed up with hard evidence, which exists to explain how the natural world operates.
The difference betwen the "theory" of creation and evolution is that evolution has mounds of supporting evidence including fossil records, DNA, gene sequencing...etc. Creation has one book written by humans thousands of years ago, with no knowledge of science or scientific methods.
Simply it's no contest, and to everyone outside the USA, it seems laughable that this debate is even happening. I truly feel sorry for the rational, intelligent people of the USA who have to put up with this nonsense.
|
I thought her answer to the evolution question was pretty near perfect. In the video she states that evoultion should be taught and mentioned, but so should other theories on life and creation I suppose. As long as each theory is being taught without bias, I agree with her. Then the student gets to here about each theory and make their own decision on which they agree with, and it's ultlimately the individual's choice. Not to mention the answer was very politically correct, and should please most people. The answer I saw is from the video posted though, and if there's a different answer she gave somewhere else then I could change my opinion.
|
Q:Should evolution be taught in school?
Traduction:Do you believe in god?WTF this is private stuff.
There's no good or bad answer, so she made it as well it could be possible.
Getting on Intelligent Design is trying to gather both sides.Smart and risky tactic.
|
Even if someone believes in intelligent design, intelligent design adds nothing to a scientific understanding of the world. Really what sort of medical breakthroughs can you do with intelligent design/creationism? Evolution however has greatly enhanced our understanding of biology and medicine.
I know Incontrol and others might be annoyed that this thread is getting derailed, but really I think this is just as important to highlight as if Anna gave a racist answer to a question. The thing is about half of the US or more do not believe in evolution so Anna's answer is hardly unique and hence might not be sufficient enough reason not to vote for her. Also note Anna does believe in Intelligent Design according to her twitter she isn't just being politically correct.
Although you can look for answers like this Miss Washington's
On June 12 2011 21:36 mindspike wrote:First interview I found that absolutely states that the world evolves but then she started rambling about theories... + Show Spoiler +
her answers which "ramble" are actually indirectly criticizing creationism/intelligent design (they are the same thing) because outright saying intelligent design is not based on facts offends half of America.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_public.htm
|
On June 13 2011 02:06 oniman999 wrote:
I thought her answer to the evolution question was pretty near perfect. In the video she states that evoultion should be taught and mentioned, but so should other theories on life and creation I suppose. As long as each theory is being taught without bias, I agree with her. Then the student gets to here about each theory and make their own decision on which they agree with, and it's ultlimately the individual's choice. Not to mention the answer was very politically correct, and should please most people. The answer I saw is from the video posted though, and if there's a different answer she gave somewhere else then I could change my opinion.
I would agree with this only if creation is taught in a religious context. It should in no way be allowed in the science classroom. It is simply not science, by any stretch of the imagination.
|
So out of the thousands of things that she can have an opinion or belief for some of you guys are dropping your "support" for her because you disagree on ONE issue. Classy. Why can't people simply respect that on some things people can have a different opinion? Even if your sure you are right you can still respect them as a person. Too many people seem to be automatically turned off to someone when they find out they have a different view on some issue (esp on the "big" issues).
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Please try and resist the urge to start judging people for their religious beliefs and derail this thread. It's the height of petty behavior to take an answer given on a nationally broadcasted stage and run wild with it (on what to teach in schools).
If she just says "no, god doesn't exist and schools should only teach scientific theories" she is removed / news articles / blah blah blah.
and if she answers the way she did a lone thread on a gaming website has a bunch of super scientists get upset for a bit until enough people ask them to calm down. I think she choose wisely. Believe it or not there are good people who believe in God and entertain the idea of intelligent design.. rather than be a dick about it every chance you get sometimes you can try and be the "bigger man" and just say "well I disagree but ok!"
|
Georgia has the FUGLIEST NOSE EVER.
|
On June 13 2011 02:13 Slaughter wrote:
So out of the thousands of things that she can have an opinion or belief for some of you guys are dropping your "support" for her because you disagree on ONE issue. Classy. Why can't people simply respect that on some things people can have a different opinion? Even if your sure you are right you can still respect them as a person. Too many people seem to be automatically turned off to someone when they find out they have a different view on some issue (esp on the "big" issues).
I wouldn't go as far as to say that I would stop supporting her because of this, but it just seems strange to me that perfectly rational, logical people for most of their life, can completely wall off that rational part of their brain when it comes to looking at religion. As, I think, Prof. Dawkins put it once, if you met one person who held the beliefs of religion, you would think him mentally ill. It's only because those beliefs are so widely held that it has become acceptable.
I'm not here to critisize Anna personally, I'm speaking generally about everyone who believes in religion, and I still hope she wins because, apart from this on issue, she's always seemed like a charasmatic, intelligent woman. Which is a lot more than can be said for most pageant contestants I have seen over the years.
|
On June 13 2011 02:06 oniman999 wrote:
I thought her answer to the evolution question was pretty near perfect. In the video she states that evoultion should be taught and mentioned, but so should other theories on life and creation I suppose. As long as each theory is being taught without bias, I agree with her. Then the student gets to here about each theory and make their own decision on which they agree with, and it's ultlimately the individual's choice. Not to mention the answer was very politically correct, and should please most people. The answer I saw is from the video posted though, and if there's a different answer she gave somewhere else then I could change my opinion.
This is the point that seems to be overlooked in this thread. Anna's answer to the whole thing is pretty solid and illustrates an understanding of a pretty complicated situation.
There's more than just a evolution versus intelligent design argument here. I would rather not derail this thread even more.
The question itself is trashy as fuck as there are no "good" answers for it and you can easily write a thesis paper on the whole topic/debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
