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 21 of 42 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 420

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

  1. #201
    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 iamitter View Post
    We can trace back basically to how the Earth looked like when it was formed, how it changed, etc. Difference for him is, he believes the tracking and physical explanations up to 6000 years ago, which is when god put everything into place the way it looked 6000 years ago.
    So basically God created two different worlds and hid all of the evidence of the massive change in physical laws? How does this render God not a liar? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the physical laws of the universe radically changed.

    He somehow finds ways to reconcile his studies with his faith.
    Everyone does. He simply wants to believe and ignores everything that contradicts his belief.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #202
    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
    Lulz, I am clearly wrong. You win.

    I'm done here. Every thread like this degenerates into a "creationists are stoopid!" "Ignorant of science"!11!1!. Let's debate with respect and reason.


    I mainly focus on cancer research. It's amazing what things we are discovering.
    If Genesis and related stories are corrected, how do you address the various physical laws issues?

    How does water sort by complexity rather then shape and mass? (This is a big reason why I think YECs are bloody idiots)

    How did that light we see from the origin of the universe age billions of years in just 6,000?

    Why is there absolutely no support in the geological record for a literal interpretation?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #203
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

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

    What has been suggested here, but not addresses directly (unless I missed something) is that the various biblical stories of creation fall to simple Newtonian physics. Evolution is not a necessary concept to cause disbelief in the creation stories that religions have. It is easier to consider Noah and the Ark since it is less emotional for most. Also, once a Bible has a Noah and the Ark story it causes doubt in the rest.

    It is now hard to argue against Newtonian physics at this point. The argument can be that God did not have to obey the laws of physics for creation, but then you end up with an ordering problem, etc.

    The point is, it is not between evolution and religion, or scientists and religious. Rather itís between religious dogma and anything that might challenge it. Scientists are not challenging religion; it is not the objective or a consideration.

  4. #204
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

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

    Moderator's Warning:
    In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?Please address the topic without personal attacks.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #205
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    So there's no problem when the evidence from his job contradicts his religious belief?

    Talk about cognitive dissonance there.
    It doesn't have anything to do with his job. Physics as a field of study alone does not have much to do with evolution or creation. You are making assumptions you don't have information on.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.
    It is thier call, not yours.

    Faith does not require evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.
    Please point out where you indicated that by creationist you meant or implied only YEC?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    But that would result in him no longer being a creationist. Creationism only survives in education, fact free zones. Educating oneself results in a creationist no longer being a creationist, or a creationist who knows their belief is wrong, but is purely in it to milk the money from his former ilk. Doctor Snelling for example. Who has submitted real geology papers while moon lighting as a fake creationist for the paycheck.
    Nope nothing here.

    Again the REAL definition and not one you made up...

    Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Class. Here's blackdog. He's a hypocrite.
    Great personal attacks. I guess we are done here.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 03-05-11 at 04:37 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  6. #206
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Its a methodological problem.
    Definitely... The universe was either created out of nothing or it's always been here in ever changing forms...

    ricksfolly

  7. #207
    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 doesn't have anything to do with his job. Physics as a field of study alone does not have much to do with evolution or creation. You are making assumptions you don't have information on.
    REALLY? You think that physics has not much to do with creation? Let's see you go on record.

    Say for me "Physics has little to do with creation." I want that on record before I bring the real guns in.

    It is thier call, not yours.
    Actually it's logic's call. If the universal laws and practices we see today is not the universal laws and practices in the past and there is no evidence to support any change, how does that suggest that God is honest in the Torah or in daily life?

    Faith does not require evidence.
    Actually faith is by definition a belief without evidence. Therefore, faith requires the absence of evidence. If faith had evidence, it would no longer be faith. Proper definitions are helpful.

    Please point out where you indicated that by creationist you meant or implied only YEC?
    Every single post I have ever made about creationism (aside from the posts where I explicitly state I am discussing theistic evolution) since the very first day I started posting here.

    It's like Navy Pride's definition of liberal. Everyone knows he means anyone who disagrees with him or any position he dislikes.

    Nope nothing here.
    Does it bother you that you are only one in the entire thread who didn't figure out we were discussing YECs?
    21 pages of posts, numerous users. And you're the only one who didn't figure out the obvious point we aren't discussing theistic evolution.

    Again the REAL definition and not one you made up
    Everyone else knew we were discussing YECs. Literally. Everyone else.

    Great personal attacks. I guess we are done here.
    Hey, you act like a hypocrite. You get called a hypocrite. Real simple.

    I am laughing at the lack of logic in your statements.
    Hmmm. No evidence of this as to date.
    Last edited by obvious Child; 03-05-11 at 09:22 PM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #208
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    REALLY? You think that physics has not much to do with creation? Let's see you go on record.
    Ummm... That's not what I said. We were talking about...

    So there's no problem when the evidence from his job contradicts his religious belief? - obvious Child

    I said in responce to THE ABOVE STATEMENT YOU MADE...

    It doesn't have anything to do with his job. Physics as a field of study alone does not have much to do with evolution or creation. You are making assumptions you don't have information on. - Blackdog

    Do you know what aspect or field of physics he is in? No you don't.

    Lets take a look...

    •Chaos - the study of systems with strong sensitivity to initial conditions, so a slight change at the beginning quickly become major changes in the system

    •Chemical Physics - the study of physics in chemical systems

    •Computational Physics - the application of numerical methods to solve physical problems for which a quantitative theory already exists

    •Cosmology - the study of the universe as a whole, including its origins and evolution

    •Cryophysics / Cryogenics / Low Temperature Physics - the study of physical properties in low temperature situations, far below the freezing point of water

    •Crystallography - the study of crystals and crystalline structures

    •Electromagnetism - the study of electrical and magnetic fields, which are two aspects of the same phenomenon

    •Electronics - the study of the flow of electrons, generally in a circuit

    •Fluid Dynamics / Fluid Mechanics - the study of the physical properties of "fluids," specifically defined in this case to be liquids and gases

    If you need more clarification, let me know.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Say for me "Physics has little to do with creation." I want that on record before I bring the real guns in.
    As I pointed out above I never said anything of the kind. You are also assuming on info you don't have.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Actually it's logic's call. If the universal laws and practices we see today is not the universal laws and practices in the past and there is no evidence to support any change, how does that suggest that God is honest in the Torah or in daily life?
    Please point out where in the Bible it says the "Laws of Nature" have been changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Actually faith is by definition a belief without evidence. Therefore, faith requires the absence of evidence. If faith had evidence, it would no longer be faith. Proper definitions are helpful.
    Yes like the proper definition of "creationism?"

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Every single post I have ever made about creationism (aside from the posts where I explicitly state I am discussing theistic evolution) since the very first day I started posting here.
    I am sorry. I must have forgotten to memorize your posts on creationism and use of the proper definition. All I know is this time you said...

    But that would result in him no longer being a creationist. Creationism only survives in education, fact free zones. Educating oneself results in a creationist no longer being a creationist, or a creationist who knows their belief is wrong, but is purely in it to milk the money from his former ilk. Doctor Snelling for example. Who has submitted real geology papers while moon lighting as a fake creationist for the paycheck. - obvious Child

    Nothing about YEC etc. Just creationism.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    [It's like Navy Pride's definition of liberal. Everyone knows he means anyone who disagrees with him or any position he dislikes.
    No it is not even close to the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Does it bother you that you are only one in the entire thread who didn't figure out we were discussing YECs?
    This is what you responded with to Spud's question...

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    But we cannot ignore the fact that some religious people are. <--- You implyed ignorant And some are truly retarded. This one creationist I met (a few others tangled with him) argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true. When confronted with the issue of the geological record not sorting species by mass and shape, he basically argued that water doesn't sort by mass and shape. Except that you can test this. In your sink. A 5 lb dinosaur should end up on average, at a higher strata then a woolly mammoth. They don't. Ever. The problem with some evolution deniers is that they basically have a belief that requires their God to be a greatest deceiver of all time.
    Nothing about YEC etc. My responce was...

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So because one person is stupid, we must not ignore this fact and judge all people on the basis that some people are stupid? OK. Your logic makes perfect sense.
    Had nothing to do with YEC or anything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    21 pages of posts, numerous users. And you're the only one who didn't figure out the obvious point we aren't discussing theistic evolution.
    Some of us were. In 21 pages you somehow missed that? I guess like me you did not read the entire thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Everyone else knew we were discussing YECs. Literally. Everyone else.
    Making another assumption that is not true.

    Then you finish off with more personal attacks.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 03-05-11 at 10:49 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  9. #209
    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
    Ummm... That's not what I said. We were talking about
    Actually it was your own quote. Are you saying you didn't say that? Are you saying someone else posted that in your stead?

    Do you know what aspect or field of physics he is in? No you don't
    And as you point out, all of those, aside from cryo, eletro and Computational would have lent some evidence against YEC. Take that back, electro would provide evidence, particularly how electrons flow through atoms and in that regard how atoms bound and react to each other and I bet I can find something that would support the other two as well. Furthermore, during his education, a physics major takes general courses, and the most basic laws of physics contradict YEC at every level. So how he got to his job and what his current physics study is, still operate on the same basic principles of all Physics, none of which support YEC.

    As I pointed out above I never said anything of the kind. You are also assuming on info you don't have.
    Try again. You did. See above.

    Please point out where in the Bible it says the "Laws of Nature" have been changed?
    Don't need to. If the world was only 6,000 years old, all of the evidence we have today must operate on a different set of physical laws. Water now sorts by mass/density/shape not complexity as the flood has it. Light now travels at a much different rate then in the past. Biological systems now require external sources of energy for respiration rather then relying upon God for nourishment as there was no death. I can keep going on and on and on about how the modern world operates on a much different physical set of laws then the YEC world.

    Yes like the proper definition of "creationism?"
    Everyone else figured out no one was taking shots at theistic evolution. Why didn't you? Answer me that. Even Digsbee right off the bat knew that. And no one had to tell him.

    I am sorry. I must have forgotten to memorize your posts on creationism and use of the proper definition.
    Everyone else figured it out. Why didn't you?

    Nothing about YEC etc. Just creationism.
    Ask the rest of the thread. They got the subject matter without having to ask.
    What does it say when everyone else knew the contempt for creationism wasn't theistic but YEC? Hint: it's you.

    No it is not even close to the same thing.
    I dunno. No one else seems to have failed to realize it wasn't theistic evolution we were talking about. Hint: it's you.

    Nothing about YEC etc. My responce was.
    Really? So the mention of the literal flood didn't clue you in?

    How about this line:

    flood and Genesis was literally true
    You can apologize now.

    Had nothing to do with YEC or anything else.
    Because you have a reading comprehension problem.

    I guess when I was talking about people who thought creation was LITERALLY TRUE that meant I wasn't talking about YEC.

    Some of us were. In 21 pages you somehow missed that? I guess like me you did not read the entire thread?
    Not in contempt of it.

    Making another assumption that is not ture.
    Did you see anyone else mistaken? Nope/

    Then you finish off with more personal attacks. How brilliant. I guess you have no real argument?
    Better then no real argument based on real comprehension problems.

    Tell me, when I said "flood and Genesis was literally true" that meant "theistic evolution?"

    Does that sound logical? Does it seem logical to assume I'm talking about theistic evolution when the only thing I was discussing was YEC topics?

    Can you point out where I said a thing about theistic evolution? Try.
    Last edited by obvious Child; 03-05-11 at 11:03 PM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #210
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Ramblings by ovious Child
    I was going to reply, but you are ignoring the facts I have stated, calling names and just ignoring the true definitions of words and making really bad red-herring arguments. So either you are having trouble understanding what I said or are just not up to par in this debate.

    So you have a good night.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Page 21 of 42 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... 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
  •