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 22 of 42 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 420

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

  1. #211
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    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? This is getting a bit heated. Everyone needs to take a break or chill a bit.... OC you in particular are pushing the limit of civility a bit much...

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  2. #212
    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?

    If blackdog wants to lie about what I wrote, he can. He should just expect retaliation.

    Apparently when I said "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."

    Actually means I'm not talking about YEC, but instead theistic evolution.

    I guess it's opposite month where what you actually say means the opposite of what you said.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #213
    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
    I was going to reply, but you are ignoring the facts I have stated
    Such as? Is this imaginary like my illogical arguments? Which by the way, you have provided absolutely none of so far.

    calling names and just ignoring the true definitions of words and making really bad red-herring arguments.
    Like how you completely missed the topic? Not to mention my actual use of LITERAL in the context of creationism? By the way, you know you actually quoted me saying LITERAL creationism at the same time you argued that quote said NOTHING about literal creationism? Good job there.

    So either you are having trouble understanding what I said or are just not up to par in this debate.
    I dunno. You argued that when I said "flood and Genesis was literally true" that I meant not literal creationism despite me saying the topic was literal creationism. You tell me.

    So you have a good night.
    Still waiting for you to apologize.

    Btw, note that my first post #88, I clearly state I was talking about YEC as evident by "flood and Genesis was literally true."
    Last edited by obvious Child; 03-06-11 at 02:36 AM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #214
    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 obvious Child View Post
    Such as? Is this imaginary like my illogical arguments? Which by the way, you have provided absolutely none of so far.



    Like how you completely missed the topic? Not to mention my actual use of LITERAL in the context of creationism? By the way, you know you actually quoted me saying LITERAL creationism at the same time you argued that quote said NOTHING about literal creationism? Good job there.



    I dunno. You argued that when I said "flood and Genesis was literally true" that I meant not literal creationism despite me saying the topic was literal creationism. You tell me.



    Still waiting for you to apologize.

    Btw, note that my first post #88, I clearly state I was talking about YEC as evident by "flood and Genesis was literally true."
    As far as I know, 'theistic evolution' is just the general notion that evolution is willed or guided by god. It says nothing about macro evolution, noahs ark, 6-day creation, fossils, etc. I can imagine many variations of "theistic evolution" that are just as stupid, or more stupid than YEC. So unless Black Dog is referring to some very specific definition of "theistic evolution" than many of the same arguments against YEC also hold up against different variations of "theistic evolution".
    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.

  5. #215
    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 scourge99 View Post
    As far as I know, 'theistic evolution' is just the general notion that evolution is willed or guided by god. It says nothing about macro evolution, noahs ark, 6-day creation, fossils, etc.
    I think you misspoke there. How can theistic evolution be guided by God and not cover macro evolution? Last I understood of the general notion of TE is that God was basically in control of evolution and that the genesis/flood story is just a metaphorical story with possible real geological evidence of a minor flood with the area around the black sea constituting "the world." TE does talk about YEC largely in rejecting many of its ideas.

    I can imagine many variations of "theistic evolution" that are just as stupid, or more stupid than YEC.
    Some possibly. I do not see a material core difference between animism and intelligent design though. Basically, things happen because of a higher power.

    So unless Black Dog is referring to some very specific definition of "theistic evolution" than many of the same arguments against YEC also hold up against different variations of "theistic evolution".
    Some possibly. Not all though. Many of the specific attacks on YEC are about its crazy views on science. Theistic evolution doesn't have many of those problems. The fossil record alone refutes the notion of a YEC world. Theistic evolution doesn't have that problem.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #216
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    If blackdog wants to lie about what I wrote, he can. He should just expect retaliation.
    I did not lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Apparently when I said "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."
    You do realize theistic evolutionists also believe in the flood? I explained it in this very thread.

    Have fun.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Actually means I'm not talking about YEC, but instead theistic evolution.
    No, it does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I guess it's opposite month where what you actually say means the opposite of what you said.
    No it is just a typical knee jerk reaction when someone does not know all the facts.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 03-06-11 at 05:56 AM.
    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.

  7. #217
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Such as? Is this imaginary like my illogical arguments? Which by the way, you have provided absolutely none of so far.

    Like how you completely missed the topic? Not to mention my actual use of LITERAL in the context of creationism? By the way, you know you actually quoted me saying LITERAL creationism at the same time you argued that quote said NOTHING about literal creationism? Good job there.

    I dunno. You argued that when I said "flood and Genesis was literally true" that I meant not literal creationism despite me saying the topic was literal creationism. You tell me.

    Still waiting for you to apologize.

    Btw, note that my first post #88, I clearly state I was talking about YEC as evident by "flood and Genesis was literally true."
    And again most theistic evolution supporters support the flood. Still don't get it do you?

    Again nothing to respond to and nothing to apologies for. You are still operating on the notion you have information you don't have.

    Read the thread.
    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.

  8. #218
    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 obvious Child View Post
    I think you misspoke there. How can theistic evolution be guided by God and not cover macro evolution?
    Because unlike the theory of evolution, Theistic Evolution is just a viewpoint based on interpretation and religious conviction. The interpretations, religious preferences, and viewpoints are vast while the theory of evolution as put forth by scientists is NOT.


    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Last I understood of the general notion of TE is that God was basically in control of evolution and that the genesis/flood story is just a metaphorical story with possible real geological evidence of a minor flood with the area around the black sea constituting "the world." TE does talk about YEC largely in rejecting many of its ideas.
    Theistic Evolution is just the general idea that evolution (in some respects) is accepted as true. It is NOT a cut-and-dry theory like that of evolution.

    What i mean by cut-and-dry is that there is a consensus within the scientific community on what evolution is, even if there are disagreements or uncertainties over particular aspects. There is no such agreement over the term "theistic evolution" in respects to whether evolution is partially true or entirely true. That is, there is lots of wiggle-room for "theistic evolutionists" to pick-and-choose. For example, its very common to see Christians who agree that micro-evolution occurs or that macro-evolution occurs but then pick-and-choose that it doesn't occur for humans or that macro-evolution only occurs in things like bacteria. I would label all these people "theistic evolutionists", perhaps you differ.



    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I do not see a material core difference between animism and intelligent design though. Basically, things happen because of a higher power.
    sure, that sound reasonable.



    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Many of the specific attacks on YEC are about its crazy views on science. Theistic evolution doesn't have many of those problems. The fossil record alone refutes the notion of a YEC world. Theistic evolution doesn't have that problem.
    Once again, you, I, and blackdog have differing ideas on what theistic evolution entails.
    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.

  9. #219
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    03-10-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    49

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    If you have spent any real time on this forum you're fully aware of the debate raging between those who support evolution and those who do not. There is little doubt that when examined as a whole, the majority of the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution as a logical explanation for the development of life. There is also little doubt that the majority of the American populace does not support evolution as explained by scientists. 78% of Americans believe God was involvement in the creation of humans either through creating us in our present form or by guiding the evolutionary process. Not surprisingly 76% of Americans consider themselves to be Christians. These numbers lead to believe that since there is little evidence for a 'debate among evolutionary scientists' the debate on evolution is between scientists and the religious. Do you agree? If not then I welcome you to support your statement.

    This vote is public so vote only if you're willing to substantiate your answer.

    This is not a debate on evolution but a debate on the debate itself.
    I'd just point out your use of the term 'majority'. Clearly there is a segment, a growing one at that, in the scientific community which does not consider evolution science, since unlike natural selection and adaptation, it is not testable, observable, or repeatable.

    I would point out that Darwin himself recognized that evolution's common ancestor was just one of two possibilities, the other being parent species. If you are to recognize a common ancestor as science, does that not mean you must likewise recognize the alternative of microevolution to the theory of macroevolution as science also?

    "When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species. This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural species—for instance, of the many foxes—inhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view."
    -"Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", pages 16-17.

    Darwin likewise recognized the lack of transitional forms (pages 171-174) and sterility resulting from interspeciary breeding (chapter VIII) as problematic to his theory that do not likewise plague the alternative theory of parent species.

    At any rate, I would simply point out that Darwin himself did not consider the alternative to evolution as anti-scientific, and considered the opposing theory of parent species to in some cases have even "presumptive or strong evidence".

  10. #220
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-25-11 @ 05:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    464

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

    There is no "debate." There is simply modern civilization, and the noise of irrational, degenerate barbarism.

Page 22 of 42 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... 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
  •