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 23 of 42 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 420

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

  1. #221
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,549

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    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.

    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.

    sure, that sound reasonable.

    Once again, you, I, and blackdog have differing ideas on what theistic evolution entails.
    Theistic evolution is simple...

    The theistic evolutionist believes organic evolution was simply "the way God did it" as He brought the Universe and its contents into existence. And although there are almost as many varieties of theistic evolution as there are people who espouse it, a few characteristics are common to all. For example, the theistic evolutionist believes in: (a) an old Earth; (b) wholly natural processes responsible for life as we see it, once the initial matter was brought into existence by God, and; (c) a figurative (non-literal) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

    Most of us believe the flood written from the perspective of a man 2000 years ago is true (as far as the flood goes.) The flood was a local event that encompassed the entire world of the writer. So the writer of the story did not lie or deceive. Scientific evidence does support a massive flood in the location described in the Bible.

    If anyone is interested: The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

    Scourge this was a very good post. You and I differ less than you think. The difference is I believe things are real that you think are a fairy tail. As far as the reasons of, we are pretty close. If you know what I mean.

    Obvious Child is making up definitions for words that are according to the dictionary and any other source wrong. He does however expect us to simply accept that.
    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.

  2. #222
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,549

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Troubadour View Post
    There is no "debate." There is simply modern civilization, and the noise of irrational, degenerate barbarism.
    Typical insults and no substance. Trolling at it finest.
    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.

  3. #223
    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 did not lie.
    That's what Truth Detector used to say. After he blatantly fabricated arguments from quotes that in no way supported what he claimed. Try again.

    You do realize theistic evolutionists also believe in the flood? I explained it in this very thread.
    And your argument was awful. I see you are pretending that I never made the subject about literal creationism despite saying so. I find it hilarious you claimed I never said anything about YEC after you quoted me specifically discussing literal creationism.

    Still waiting for your apology.

    Have fun blackdog!

    No, it does not.
    Indeed. It doesn't. You were absolutely, 100% WRONG. Thanks for admitting it!

    No it is just a typical knee jerk reaction when someone does not know all the facts.
    Indeed! You claimed I said nothing about YEC after you quoting me specifically discussing YEC. You clearly descended into typical knee jerk reaction as you demonstrated clear lack of facts.

    Glad we can agree you screwed up.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #224
    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
    And again most theistic evolution supporters support the flood. Still don't get it do you?
    As a metaphorical story. That's not what what everyone else is talking about.

    Not as the literal truth.

    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.
    Like how you falsely claimed I said nothing about YEC after you quoting me discussing just YEC?

    You can apologize now.

    RTFT.

    Btw, look up "LITERAL" in the dictionary. You seem to be very unaware of what it means.

    Obvious Child is making up definitions for words that are according to the dictionary and any other source wrong. He does however expect us to simply accept that.
    I guess you do think that literal creationism = theistic evolution then. Kind of stupid no?
    Last edited by obvious Child; 03-06-11 at 05:18 PM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #225
    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
    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.
    But how does that prove that TE doesn't cover macroevolution? As you stated, TE is just a viewpoint based on interpretation and religious conviction. And as you stated they are vast. How does that prove TE doesn't discuss macro?

    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.
    I don't disagree with this. In fact I did argue much of the same thing when I discussed TE as varying from a few steps from YEC to virtual atheism.

    sure, that sound reasonable.
    It does piss off intelligent design people to compare their belief to animism though. That's always fun to do.

    Once again, you, I, and blackdog have differing ideas on what theistic evolution entails.
    Indeed. Blackdog seems to define theistic evolution as YEC as he accused me of never discussing TE despite me stating "literal." That's exceptionally peculiar.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #226
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,549

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    That's what Truth Detector used to say. After he blatantly fabricated arguments from quotes that in no way supported what he claimed. Try again.
    I did not fabricate anything. Please point out something I fabricated. You keep wanting to ignore your own posts. And the point I came in.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    And your argument was awful. I see you are pretending that I never made the subject about literal creationism despite saying so. I find it hilarious you claimed I never said anything about YEC after you quoted me specifically discussing literal creationism.
    Please point out how my "argument" was awful? Then you go off on some tangent that has nothing to do with my direct comment.

    I am not pretending anything. I came in late and responded to you saying...

    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.
    Ikari's statement was about evolution and abiogenesis, not YEC. Your comment makes no mention of it. I responded going by the ACTUAL definition of the word...

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Not true.

    Being confused about the difference between abiogenesis and evolution has nothing at all to do with "him no longer being a creationist." I am a creationist and yet evolution is a fact. It has not changed my view or rocked the foundations of my faith. Now details about certain aspects of evolution are questionable, but in the end for the most part it is supported by good evidence.

    Your post is mainly baiting, blanket statements and misinformation.
    My comment was about being a creationist not rocking the foundations of the faithful.

    Then you went of the reservation.

    My second responce to you was to this...

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    But we cannot ignore the fact that some religious people are. 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.
    To which I responded...

    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.
    Notice how none of my responses had anything at all to do with YEC directly? You made a fallacy argument and I pointed that out with the correct definition.


    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Still waiting for your apology.
    OK. I am sorry my comments made yours look dumb.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Have fun blackdog!
    I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Indeed. It doesn't. You were absolutely, 100% WRONG. Thanks for admitting it!
    Uh why do you lie?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Indeed! You claimed I said nothing about YEC after you quoting me specifically discussing YEC. You clearly descended into typical knee jerk reaction as you demonstrated clear lack of facts.
    Please feel free to point out where I did this?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Glad we can agree you screwed up.
    Well more personal attacks. Have you no argument at all?
    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. #227
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,549

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    But how does that prove that TE doesn't cover macroevolution? As you stated, TE is just a viewpoint based on interpretation and religious conviction. And as you stated they are vast. How does that prove TE doesn't discuss macro?
    Because it does not recognize macro evolution as valid. The majority of Theistic evolutionists do not recognize it. Who do you think originally coined the phrase?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Indeed. Blackdog seems to define theistic evolution as YEC as he accused me of never discussing TE despite me stating "literal." That's exceptionally peculiar.
    I have already shown using your posts this is not true.
    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. #228
    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 Blackdog View Post
    Theistic evolution is simple...

    The theistic evolutionist believes organic evolution was simply "the way God did it" as He brought the Universe and its contents into existence. ...there are almost as many varieties of theistic evolution as there are people who espouse it,
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    a few characteristics are common to all. For example, the theistic evolutionist believes in: (a) an old Earth; (b) wholly natural processes responsible for life as we see it, once the initial matter was brought into existence by God, and; (c) a figurative (non-literal) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.
    I would not define theistic evolution as you have done. But that is irrelevant as long as we are both conveying our ideas clearly to one another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Most of us believe the flood written from the perspective of a man 2000 years ago is true (as far as the flood goes.) The flood was a local event that encompassed the entire world of the writer. So the writer of the story did not lie or deceive.
    I don't believe "most" Christians agree. Most of the Christians in the US are members of sects of Christianity which predominately put forth a literal interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps individuals may differ in their personal or private beliefs but one can easily check the theology of Catholics, Baptists, and others and see that such liberal views as you espouse are growing in number but still a minority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Scientific evidence does support a massive flood in the location described in the Bible.

    If anyone is interested: The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
    I am sure literalists can provide links and arguments showing why you are wrong as well.

    Of course, ALL biblical contradictions, inconsistencies and errors can be "explained" by speculation, "interpretation" and opinion. Offering alternative "explanations" does not remove the contradiction, inconsistency or error, but presents a "positive spin" that MAY apply or may not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Scourge this was a very good post. You and I differ less than you think.
    We are all human and share the very similar culture after all. Except for the extremely religious, our religion or lack thereof has little effect on our day to day lives.

    For example, how many times do you consider or make decisions based on your religion when you buy groceries, drive to work, or chat with co-workers, and friends?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    The difference is I believe things are real that you think are a fairy tail.
    I disagree with your use of the word "fairy-tail".

    I reject the literal truth of the supernatural events reported in the OT as well as those in the NT for many of the same reasons I reject supernatural claims in other holy-books. But I don't think mythical, legendary, folkloric or allegorical nature invalidates the Bibles message anymore than the books of others. Someone else put it better than I can:

    If the Bible is read for what it actually, inarguably IS, a collection of ancient documents from a variety of sources and places and with wildly varying points of view, styles, and agendas, it has value of many kinds; but not -- repeat, NOT -- as either the Actual, Literal Words of God, nor as mere fiction, fable and fairytale. It is the record of men, and a few women, of ancient times -- prophets, poets, priests and kings, some brilliant, some thoughtful, some obsessed, and some mad as hatters -- thinking and writing ABOUT God. It should neither be swallowed whole nor dismissed and ignored entirely.


    It's entirely possible to take the Bible or any other holy text seriously without taking it literally. Indeed, one wonders how else an intelligent, educated person would take it.
    Last edited by scourge99; 03-06-11 at 06:03 PM.
    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. #229
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,549

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    As a metaphorical story. That's not what what everyone else is talking about.

    Not as the literal truth.
    That would depend on who you asked now wouldn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Like how you falsely claimed I said nothing about YEC after you quoting me discussing just YEC?

    You can apologize now.
    I said "in the quote I responded to" which I have posted again above. You went into fallacy land, not me.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Btw, look up "LITERAL" in the dictionary. You seem to be very unaware of what it means.
    I know what it means and as I show above have no issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    I guess you do think that literal creationism = theistic evolution then. Kind of stupid no?
    What is stupid is you brought it in as I did not respond to that. I posted it above...

    Enjoy.

    No I don't think they are the same thing, but they share aspects you want, no need to ignore.

    Have a nice day.
    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.

  10. #230
    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
    But how does that prove that TE doesn't cover macroevolution? As you stated, TE is just a viewpoint based on interpretation and religious conviction. And as you stated they are vast. How does that prove TE doesn't discuss macro?
    On one hand we are discussing a scientific theory and on the other we are discussing beliefs. All I am saying is that "theistic evolution" is a belief that is ill-defined and vague, where as the theory of evolution as a scientific term is NOT.

    You can define theistic evolution however you wish but it is a non-issue as long as we are both conveying our ideas clearly to one another.
    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.

Page 23 of 42 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... 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
  •