View Poll Results: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Voters
71. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    38 53.52%
  • No

    33 46.48%
Page 20 of 42 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 420

Thread: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

  1. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    Yes, you missed the point. The point is: How does a 7 year old decide that stories in a Bible are not factual. It certainly is not because I was a scientist or religious as adults are. And this belies the basis of the poll and the thread. So what does make a 7 year old decide that Noah and the Ark is not factual?
    The seven year old decides it's silly. Mayor Snorkum had a similar experience, his parents sent him to Church School for his dreaded and silly First Communion, even though they never went to church and never discussed religion with their children. So I read the whole story of the Noah's Ark myth and long before the lady in the black up front was done reading it to us asked her "what's this word that looks like "dog" spelled backwards?"

    Mayor Snorkum was the hit of the ball.

  2. #192
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,775

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    The seven year old decides it's silly. Mayor Snorkum had a similar experience, his parents sent him to Church School for his dreaded and silly First Communion, even though they never went to church and never discussed religion with their children. So I read the whole story of the Noah's Ark myth and long before the lady in the black up front was done reading it to us asked her "what's this word that looks like "dog" spelled backwards?"

    Mayor Snorkum was the hit of the ball.
    Mayor Snorkum ought to learn to stop typing in the third person, it makes you look ridiculous.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  3. #193
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Last Seen
    10-15-12 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    523

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    I think that's part of the reason why Europe is so much more non-religious than the United States: they have state religions.

    If the government gets involved in religious matters people realize it's crap pretty easily.

  4. #194
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Yes, but we know the lottery is actually real, and they actually have a ticket in their pocket which could, in theory, win said lottery. It's demonstrably factual.
    Could be like those "three winners from last season now enjoying themselves in the sun" from The Running Man....I mean, they could easily create a new fictitious winner that no one's ever heard about and there'd be none the wiser. And they'd get to keep hundreds of millions of dollars, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Then you get religion, where there is no evidence that any god(s) actually exist, that the supernatural claims made in any of the holy books are real, or that any of the promises made in said books is more than wishful thinking.
    Mayor Snorkum says that the "lack" of evidence is merely another way of saying that events are more reliably explaine using the laws of nature. However, the human animal has an innate need to create gods and more people are susceptible to this instinct than are resistant to it. Thus the argument that "no evidence" exists becomes subjective.

    Mayor Snorkum doesn't disagree with you, but many others will, and they won't listen when rational refutations are presented to their "evidence".

    [/quote]Belief in something for which you have no good reason to think is actually true is delusion. Many people are openly and happily delusional. That's sad, no matter how good said delusion might make them feel.[/QUOTE]

    No. Delusion is a belief that something one imagines is not only real but that there's no doubting it's reality. Jimmy Stewart's "Harvey".

    Delusions may be challenged when when the believer notices a crack in his perceptions of reality. The religiously devout denies any cracks exist.

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Mayor Snorkum ought to learn to stop typing in the third person, it makes you look ridiculous.
    Cephus should stop critiqueing style when he should be addressing substance. It makes him look ridiculous.

  6. #196
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter View Post
    Question? Just how does a truth qualify as being an assumption? A truth is demonstrable, either objectively qualified as a fact through the production of testable evidences or accepted as truth beyond reason of doubt as based upon the prima facie evidence, which lacks a counter argument based upon objective evidence that can dismiss that which is held as truth...
    I highlighted where I disagree. There are a seemingly infinite amount of explanations and ideas that can be put forth to explain ANYTHING. Even if we limit these to explanations and ideas that must be consistent with objective evidence. For example, I could right now invent a theory about how magical invisible pixies are the cause of gravity. I could make it entirely consistent and pick out experiments and obscure examples that support such an explanation.

    So how can we discern theories that explain things but are mutually exclusive? Here is a short list of desirable properties for models/theories:
    1) make predictions that can be verified and reproduced independently.
    2) conform to the preponderance of evidence of reality.
    3) remain consistent and coherent.

    I've mentioned this a few times: I'm very impressed with the logical abilities of theologians, who construct the most intricate, elaborate, methodical apologetics imaginable (I don't include C.S. Lewis among them, though — that man conjured up flimsy, weak appeals to mindless sentiment and inanity). The gripe isn't that they're stupid or incapable of rationality, it's that they build fantastical castles in the clouds and expect you to ignore the absence of testable, observable support.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter View Post
    in fact theoretical science bases its conclusions not upon Physical Science as per the yielding of Observed, Reproducible Experiments but upon the observance of today's known facts that (here comes the catch all philosophical phrase) point to a projected outcome.
    This is nothing more than conspiracy theory. As with 9/11 truthers and Area 51 loonies, such arguments will not be addressed. You will only be ridiculed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter View Post
    And believe me..there is far than enough objective evidence to give anyone with common sense a REASON to doubt, the most obvious is the falsification each and every time that Vertical Evolution is tested by the Scientific Method of the Observed, Reproducible Experimentation.
    How has "vertical evolution" been tested? Please reference the experiment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Walter View Post
    Yet not one experiment can falsify CREATION as a viable explanation for the origin of man...if so, produce it.
    Not one experiment can falsify CREATION as an act of giant invisible pink unicorns. If so, produce it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Walter View Post
    Whether derived through facts or prima facie in nature.....TRUTH is not based upon assumption. I believe the field that you wish to engage is Philosophy not SCIENCE. You know the supposed question of the ages....WHAT IS TRUTH, What is the purpose of man...yada, yada, yada, a field that accepts the ignorance of asking a question that is ASSUMED has no answer as a sign of supposed intellect instead of pomposity, simply because you do not like the answer to the question.......Intelligent Design.
    Has it ever occurred to you that I and many others have considered and evaluated intelligent design? That it was rejected not because of pride or prejudice but because it is an idea without evidence, without support, that is indistinguishable from any number of other poorly supported claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter View Post
    Such Pomposity even has Stephen Hawking rejecting Physical Science in a emotional need to dismiss God from the equation with his latest insane suggestion
    Oh, i see. You are one of those presumptuous religious wackos who think that people reject your god-claims because they secretly believe its true. Am I right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Walter View Post
    "The Universe Spontaneously popped into existence from Nothing." Science...real science proves that if there ever was a time when nothing is all that existed, NOTHING WOULD STILL BE IN EXISTENCE TODAY as -0- + -0- = -0-
    What is your level of education Walter? Have you read Hawking's work? How much time have you put into understanding the theories put forth by physicists? Based on what you've said, I'd say less than a couple of hours.
    Last edited by scourge99; 03-05-11 at 02:32 AM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  7. #197
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    You have got to be kidding? ...

    So now we must read your mind and go by your unaccepted definition of words?
    Wow. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

    Did you ENTIRELY miss this section of my post?

    Tell me, when have I ever discussed the term creationist as anything other than a literalists? Hint: never.

    Furthermore, I have made it abundantly clear in the past that when I say creationist, I mean YEC. Not the varying degrees of belief between YEC and atheist. So you interjecting I'm wrong on the basis of a definition of creationist I have never used here and made clear that I never will use is dishonest.

    Try again. And with less fail this time.
    Total fail there. Total fail.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #198
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    It does not conflict. Again faith does not need evidence.
    So there's no problem when the evidence from his job contradicts his religious belief?

    Talk about cognitive dissonance there.

    That is up to the individual as faith AGAIN does not require evidence.
    And if that person wants to accept their God is the biggest deceiver of all time. Or they could merely acknowledge their religious belief is inherently contradictory.

    By saying you called people stupid based on a religious belief, I am berating you? Wow.
    A very specific belief. And you totally failed to understand why I called you a hypocrite. I made a very distinct point, as to which you fabricated my argument into something it entirely wasn't, calling my post baiting despite you doing the same thing.

    Class. Here's blackdog. He's a hypocrite.

    Then your first comment is "YECs are stupid.." I am not "berating" you, I am laughing at the lack of logic in your statements.
    Which you have yet to show a single illogical point. Keep trying. One of these days you'll get something correct.

    And I rest my case.
    That you don't understand logic? I agree. You don't.

    You do understand he was talking to Diggs, and not me?
    Irrelevant. The point still holds true. You completely and utterly failed to figure out what everyone else inherently grasped from the start.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #199
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    On the contrary, because he is arguing above science, he has made the best validation for faith.
    But he also created a serious problem theologically. When one's daily life contradicts one's belief, either the belief is wrong, or your life is a lie.

    Hence why I argue that YECs are not Christians, as their belief requires a Liar God, invalidating them as followers of Christ.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #200
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I disagree, I think the holes make it not feasible and it's not proven. I think it's the best secular explanation and that's why many chose to accept it.
    So the fact that thousands of practical applications of it have no bearing upon your opinion?

    You use oil products no? Want to know how oil firms often find the deposits? Hint: It has to do with evolutionary time lines.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 20 of 42 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •