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

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 24 of 42 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 420
Like Tree138Likes

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

  1. #231
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    11-20-14 @ 10:16 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,802
    Likes Received
    5083 times
    Likes Given
    3862

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    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.
    You mean the posts I re-quoted showing me saying "literal" that you are now pretending don't exist despite quoting them yourself? Good job on that btw.


    Please point out how my "argument" was awful?
    Because you are trying to apply the localized flood story to my literal flood argument. It's apples to oranges. TE doesn't believe in a global, literal flood. hence why I'm starting to believe you think YEC = Theistic evolution. You keep applying theistic arguments to YEC as proof I talked about theistic despite me stating literal.

    Then you go off on some tangent that has nothing to do with my direct comment.
    See above. Less fail next post. Thanks.

    I am not pretending anything. I came in late and responded to you saying.
    And 6 minutes later you responded to my first post. Which explicitly discussed Literal Creationism. Which you have gone on record saying contains no references to YEC.

    Still waiting for you to admit you screwed that one up.

    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
    See the post above that one. Post 100, the one you are now pretending doesn't exist because it blows your entire argument out of the water. Furthermore, I referenced Dr. Snelling who is a literal creationist, posting articles for Answers in Genesis that denies evolution entirely and pushes a YEC only view. Do you damn research next time. Seriously.

    Just admit you are wrong and we can move on.

    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.
    Your inability to figure out despite the blatant explicit discussion of YEC is not my fault.

    Let's see. Outright stating literal creationism doesn't mean literal to you. Discussing a literal creationist by NAME doesn't mean literal to you. If you cannot get the hint with me STATING literal, that's not my fault.

    Thus, why I stated you may have a reading comprehension problem. If so, I apologize for being a prick to you.

    OK. I am sorry my comments made yours look dumb.
    Okay. I am sorry for picking on someone who has a significant mental disability that reduces his ability to comprehended written English.

    Literal to you apparently means not literal.

    Uh why do you lie?

    Please feel free to point out where I did this?
    How did I lie?

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1059328591 (In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?)

    You quoted me saying this:

    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.
    to which you replied:

    Nothing about YEC etc. My responce was...
    Too bad I stated this:

    argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true
    OOPS. To which you are now pretending you never said that.

    You can apologize any time now.

    Well more personal attacks. Have you no argument at all?
    See above. You screwed up. Apologize.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #232
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    11-20-14 @ 10:16 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,802
    Likes Received
    5083 times
    Likes Given
    3862

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    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?
    Care to prove this point?

    I have already shown using your posts this is not true.
    Oh the contrary. You did no such thing.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1059328591 (In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?)

    4th paragraph from the bottom. Do you see "literal" in what you quoted from me?

    Oops.

    I said "in the quote I responded to" which I have posted again above.
    Which is amusing as you keep posting something you say contains no references to Literal Creationism despite containing the line "flood and Genesis was literally true."

    Oops again.

    What is stupid is you brought it in as I did not respond to that. I posted it above...
    Well you keep saying I made no reference to YEC. Despite quoting me doing so. So apparently quoting me saying "flood and Genesis was literally true" means I actually was talking about theistic evolution.

    So it's not stupid at all.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #233
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-25-11 @ 04:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    464
    Likes Received
    181 times
    Likes Given
    32

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Typical insults and no substance.
    I provided all the "substance" there is to be had on this matter. There is science, and then there are subcultures who depend on conservative sabotage of education to propagate lies, mythologies, and magical thinking. No "debate" is possible with people who reject the very concept of empirical reasoning. If you want to know science, it's all there in the open for you to learn if you take the time. In lieu of that commitment, honesty, and humility, no one can help you. Anyone who thinks they can know the world by reading Sumerian myths does not have the patience or intellectual exposure to deal with reality, or the logical tools to offer a substantive argument with scientific reasoning.
    Last edited by Troubadour; 03-06-11 at 05:22 PM.

  4. #234
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    22,789
    Likes Received
    5879 times
    Likes Given
    7112

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Troubadour View Post
    I provided all the "substance" there is to be had on this matter. There is science, and then there are subcultures who depend on conservative sabotage of education to propagate lies, mythologies, and magical thinking. No "debate" is possible with people who reject the very concept of empirical reasoning. If you want to know science, it's all there in the open for you to learn if you take the time. In lieu of that commitment, honesty, and humility, no one can help you. Anyone who thinks they can know the world by reading Sumerian myths does not have the patience or intellectual exposure to deal with reality, or the logical tools to offer a substantive argument with scientific reasoning.
    Partisan bigotry.

    End of story.
    "Some of these morons look at Barack Obama and see Magneto."- Kobie
    "My suggestion was to restructure his title using a colin. But you made such a big deal about it." - Serato

  5. #235
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    22,789
    Likes Received
    5879 times
    Likes Given
    7112

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    You mean the posts I re-quoted showing me saying "literal" that you are now pretending don't exist despite quoting them yourself? Good job on that btw.




    Because you are trying to apply the localized flood story to my literal flood argument. It's apples to oranges. TE doesn't believe in a global, literal flood. hence why I'm starting to believe you think YEC = Theistic evolution. You keep applying theistic arguments to YEC as proof I talked about theistic despite me stating literal.



    See above. Less fail next post. Thanks.



    And 6 minutes later you responded to my first post. Which explicitly discussed Literal Creationism. Which you have gone on record saying contains no references to YEC.

    Still waiting for you to admit you screwed that one up.



    See the post above that one. Post 100, the one you are now pretending doesn't exist because it blows your entire argument out of the water. Furthermore, I referenced Dr. Snelling who is a literal creationist, posting articles for Answers in Genesis that denies evolution entirely and pushes a YEC only view. Do you damn research next time. Seriously.

    Just admit you are wrong and we can move on.



    Your inability to figure out despite the blatant explicit discussion of YEC is not my fault.

    Let's see. Outright stating literal creationism doesn't mean literal to you. Discussing a literal creationist by NAME doesn't mean literal to you. If you cannot get the hint with me STATING literal, that's not my fault.

    Thus, why I stated you may have a reading comprehension problem. If so, I apologize for being a prick to you.



    Okay. I am sorry for picking on someone who has a significant mental disability that reduces his ability to comprehended written English.

    Literal to you apparently means not literal.



    How did I lie?

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1059328591 (In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?)

    You quoted me saying this:



    to which you replied:



    Too bad I stated this:



    OOPS. To which you are now pretending you never said that.

    You can apologize any time now.



    See above. You screwed up. Apologize.
    No I did not. You just don't understand what I was responding to. Huge difference. You have no clue because you are obsessed with your inaccurate definition.

    Then you go on about something I did not respond to and even highlighted in my original post what I directly responded to.

    Your answers look stupid not because they are wrong, but they have nothing at all to do with my initial responses.
    "Some of these morons look at Barack Obama and see Magneto."- Kobie
    "My suggestion was to restructure his title using a colin. But you made such a big deal about it." - Serato

  6. #236
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-03-12 @ 05:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    49
    Likes Received
    9 times
    Likes Given
    4

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

    Well, I would like to point out Darwin himself recognized a scientific alternative to a common ancestor in his book, On the Origin of Species, pages 16-17:

    "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."

    In other words, no, there is plenty of reasonable basis according to Darwin himself for divide between scientists over evolution, and the alternative theory of parent species a perfectly reasonable possibility to a common ancestor. Alfred Russell Wallace for example was the co-discoverer of evolution and was blackballed by the scientific community for his support of spiritualism, including belief that a spiritual creator was responsible for the inbreathing of life into human beings. While he believed in psychics/mediums and was not necessarily a Christian, it's been posited he is something of a missing link between evolutionists and the intelligent design crowd.

  7. #237
    Sleeper Agent
    iamitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NY, NY
    Last Seen
    10-01-12 @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    1,833
    Likes Received
    509 times
    Likes Given
    227

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
    Well, I would like to point out Darwin himself recognized a scientific alternative to a common ancestor in his book, On the Origin of Species, pages 16-17:

    "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."

    In other words, no, there is plenty of reasonable basis according to Darwin himself for divide between scientists over evolution, and the alternative theory of parent species a perfectly reasonable possibility to a common ancestor. Alfred Russell Wallace for example was the co-discoverer of evolution and was blackballed by the scientific community for his support of spiritualism, including belief that a spiritual creator was responsible for the inbreathing of life into human beings. While he believed in psychics/mediums and was not necessarily a Christian, it's been posited he is something of a missing link between evolutionists and the intelligent design crowd.
    Modern evolutionary theory =/= darwin evolutionary theory
    Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.

  8. #238
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-03-12 @ 05:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    49
    Likes Received
    9 times
    Likes Given
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
    Modern evolutionary theory =/= darwin evolutionary theory
    What do you mean by this? Merely that changes have occurred? Darwin was correct in many of his analyses of his theory in the book, that the concerns are a lack of transitional forms, and sterility caused by interspeciary breeding - which do not occur in parent species, or microevolution, as some have called it.

    Furthermore, as someone who has followed the news over the past decade, I'm well aware of how drastically the theory of evolution has been weakening, e.g. the discoveries Homo Erectus and Habilis co-existed (meaning they didn't evolve from each other), dating problems when Sahelanthropus and Orrorin Tungenesis were discovered to have lived too early, that Arthipidecus Ramidus (including the famed 'Lucy') walked upright and thus may be another 'offshoot', and that Homo Floresiensis, 'Hobbit Man', was not a missing link but yet another offshoot.

    As a result of these, scientists have been recently acknowledging the 'tree' is now a 'messy bush' with branches going everywhere, per Newsweek and the New York Times.

  9. #239
    Sleeper Agent
    iamitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NY, NY
    Last Seen
    10-01-12 @ 07:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    1,833
    Likes Received
    509 times
    Likes Given
    227

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
    What do you mean by this? Merely that changes have occurred? Darwin was correct in many of his analyses of his theory in the book, that the concerns are a lack of transitional forms, and sterility caused by interspeciary breeding - which do not occur in parent species, or microevolution, as some have called it.

    Furthermore, as someone who has followed the news over the past decade, I'm well aware of how drastically the theory of evolution has been weakening, e.g. the discoveries Homo Erectus and Habilis co-existed (meaning they didn't evolve from each other), dating problems when Sahelanthropus and Orrorin Tungenesis were discovered to have lived too early, that Arthipidecus Ramidus (including the famed 'Lucy') walked upright and thus may be another 'offshoot', and that Homo Floresiensis, 'Hobbit Man', was not a missing link but yet another offshoot.

    As a result of these, scientists have been recently acknowledging the 'tree' is now a 'messy bush' with branches going everywhere, per Newsweek and the New York Times.
    My point was that many of the issues described by Darwin in his book have been addressed by modern evolutionary theory.
    Evolution is not stagnant field. It is being revised every day as new research comes up - we cannot look at the book written by the founder of the original theory as proof of anything.
    I don't see the things you posted as weakening the scientific theory, merely as editing and updating it.

    If they weren't looking to improve it, that would mean it is complete, finished and perfect. And it clearly is not.
    Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.

  10. #240
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-03-12 @ 05:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    49
    Likes Received
    9 times
    Likes Given
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
    My point was that many of the issues described by Darwin in his book have been addressed by modern evolutionary theory.
    Evolution is not stagnant field. It is being revised every day as new research comes up - we cannot look at the book written by the founder of the original theory as proof of anything.
    I don't see the things you posted as weakening the scientific theory, merely as editing and updating it.

    If they weren't looking to improve it, that would mean it is complete, finished and perfect. And it clearly is not.
    It is being revised - yet never with considering the alternative of parent species Darwin himself recognized over a century ago. Why is that? Perhaps because it's only being revised according to the worldviews of evolutionists which reject any theory that could fit a Biblical worldview.

    For example, the theory of Uniformitarianism, that everything occurs due to steady, natural processes apart from God, was actually developed by Lyell in seeking an alternative to Catastrophism, since his mentor was using it to support the concept of a Biblical flood. As Berkeley University notes,

    "Catastrophism," as this school of thought came to be known, was attacked in 1830 by a British lawyer-turned-geologist named Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Lyell started his career studying under the catastrophist William Buckland at Oxford. But Lyell became disenchanted with Buckland when Buckland tried to link catastrophism to the Bible, looking for evidence that the most recent catastrophe had actually been Noah's flood. Lyell wanted to find a way to make geology a true science of its own, built on observation and not susceptible to wild speculations or dependent on the supernatural.

    For inspiration, Lyell turned to the fifty-year-old ideas of a Scottish farmer named James Hutton. In the 1790s, Hutton had argued that the Earth was transformed not by unimaginable catastrophes but by imperceptibly slow changes, many of which we can see around us today. Rain erodes mountains, while molten rock pushes up to create new ones. The eroded sediments form into layers of rock, which can later be lifted above sea level, tilted by the force of the uprising rock, and eroded away again. These changes are tiny, but with enough time they could produce vast changes. Hutton therefore argued that the Earth was vastly old — a sort of perpetual-motion machine passing through regular cycles of destruction and rebuilding that made the planet suitable for mankind.
    ...
    Lyell had an equally profound effect on our understanding of life's history. He influenced Darwin so deeply that Darwin envisioned evolution as a sort of biological uniformitarianism. Evolution took place from one generation to the next before our very eyes, he argued, but it worked too slowly for us to perceive.
    My point is that they are seeking alternatives only that mesh with an atheistic worldview, and going on the assumption that the Bible is wrong and God does not exist, actively seeking any alternatives that provide basis for this belief. Yes, they are revising their beliefs, but only within such a framework.

    The scientific method serves well for objective evaluation of a theory, but it does not preclude bias in choosing a theory.

    To evidence this, I again ask why, after a century, have we not seriously looked into what Darwin back then recognized was a viable alternative to a common ancestor, parent species? His own book stated "presumptive, or even strong evidence" for such an alternative, yet all this time later there is a dearth of research on the leading alternative theory proposed by Darwin.

    Now, that does not make sense if they are revising their theory with all possible alternatives in mind, only if they are specifically seeking only those which assume a common ancestor to deny as Charles Lyell once did, all theories compatible with a Biblical worldview.
    Last edited by Jzyehoshua; 03-06-11 at 08:28 PM.

Page 24 of 42 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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
  •