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 30 of 42 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 420

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

  1. #291
    Educator
    Anarcho-fascist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    T E X A S !
    Last Seen
    09-26-14 @ 11:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,069
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Since faith is accepting something as true without evidence, the very idea of presenting counter evidence seems silly. Evidence didn't form their opinion in the first place, so why would you assume evidence would change it? Talk about delusions.
    It doesn't matter how you formed your opinion. Evidence against a position is still evidence against a position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I for one didn't accept the premise that God exists because I had evidence. That's backwards and leads me to wonder if you even realize how theories work. In order to test your hypothesis you have to operate under various assumed premises which you know you don't have evidence for.
    Then why did you accept the premise? Even if some theories (religion is not a scientific theory) have initial premises, that doesn't make the whole theory that way. Scientific theories have substantial evidence for them, that's why they aren't discarded. Religions have assumptions throughout them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You would have every person stuck in the endless regression of proofs of proofs, proofs of proofs of proofs, and proofs of proofs of proofs. There comes a point where you have to just accept something as reasonable even if you can't bottle it. The assumption of God is made reasonable at a basic social and biological level, and it's a premise from which many tested behaviors prove to be beneficial.
    Assumptions are reasonable when there is a reason to think that they are true, not when they seem nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I think militant atheists such as yourself are just uncomfortable with anyone who doesn't hyper-qualify every word they say with "I believe" or "in my opinion".
    Precision of language is no vice when dealing with something like religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Your behavior on this forum doesn't represent atheists as well adjusted members of society.

  2. #292
    Educator
    Anarcho-fascist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    T E X A S !
    Last Seen
    09-26-14 @ 11:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,069
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    Not so... They believe because they need to or have to, and their belief is as real to them as their arms and legs.
    So, in other words, exactly what he said.

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    We're all hardwired to believe in something. If not religion, other emotional causes, principals, and conventional wisdom that may or may not be true, no matter what they are, or whether they make sense or not, for the the rest of our lives.
    People change their minds. One's beliefs are not hardwired no matter how unreasonable someone becomes defending them.
    Last edited by Anarcho-fascist; 03-20-11 at 09:16 PM.

  3. #293
    Educator
    Anarcho-fascist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    T E X A S !
    Last Seen
    09-26-14 @ 11:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,069
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Every healthy human has a philosophical outlook just as they have a language. Like language, philosophies have different aesthetics, but are all used for the same things.
    My philosophy is that I care about what is true.

  4. #294
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Except that scientists can prove their points. Theologians never can. Neither the proponents of any organized religion, nor the theists, not the atheists can prove their position. That's the difference between science and religion. None of that means that religion is wrong, of course, except when its beliefs have been proven incorrect scientifically.
    Science isn't always provable - some of it remains theory forever. Or for an extremely long time. Creation is just one example. Other theories that they battle about are seen between sociology and psychology - nurture vs nature - and so forth.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  5. #295
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:51 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 Aunt Spiker View Post
    Science isn't always provable - some of it remains theory forever. Or for an extremely long time. Creation is just one example. Other theories that they battle about are seen between sociology and psychology - nurture vs nature - and so forth.
    Everything remains a theory forever. There is never anything set in stone. However, it's when people start trying to use the non-scientific definition of "theory" that it becomes a problem. A scientific theory is a set of statements that seek to explain how scientific observations and facts happen. It isn't just a random hodgepodge guess. It becomes a problem with these ignorant loons think that a non-scientific theory is on the same level as a scientific theory. It isn't even close.
    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!

  6. #296
    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 Aunt Spiker View Post
    Science isn't always provable
    what does that even mean, exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    - some of it remains theory forever. Or for an extremely long time.
    You use the term "theory" in a non-academic manner. This leads to much confusion, equivocation, and conflation.

    In common parlance, a theory is a hunch or guess about something (e.g., "I have a theory that my teacher is an alien"). In science, however, a theory is an explanation of a set of observations that has been tested and found to be well-supported by evidence (e.g., "the theory of relativity"). The common usage of the word theory is closer in meaning to hypothesis in science: a plausible (or possible) explanation.

    The distinction between a theory and a hypothesis (or even a guess) is an important one, and ignoring it leads to the kind of equivocation in apologetics exemplified by the claim that "evolution is only a theory".

    As defined by Kevin Padian in his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial:

    "A theory, in science, [is] a very large body of information that's withstood a lot of testing. It probably consists of a number of different hypotheses, many different lines of evidence. And it's something that is very difficult to slay with an ugly fact, as Huxley once put it, because it's just a complex body of work that's been worked on through time."

    Kitzmiller v. Dover trial transcript, day 9, a.m. session





    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Creation is just one example.
    There is no scientific consensus on abiogenesis. That does NOT mean there never will be. That does NOT mean there will be.
    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. #297
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    It doesn't matter how you formed your opinion. Evidence against a position is still evidence against a position.
    That it is, but repeatedly trying to sway someone's opinion with evidence when their opinion is not based on evidence is the very definition of insanity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    Then why did you accept the premise?
    It seems to work. If one accepts that God exists, then based on that accepts God's authority, then based on that follows His rules even when one disagree with them, then if the premises are valid one should see benefits greater than chance.

    One day I decided to accept those premises, and I experienced a great improvement since that very day.

    How my faith in God has improved my life speaks louder to me than any counter evidence random nameless posters could link in an online debate forum. To sway someone from their faith you would have to get personal and real with them on a one on one basis and demonstrate in real life how your way of seeing things is better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    Even if some theories (religion is not a scientific theory) have initial premises, that doesn't make the whole theory that way. Scientific theories have substantial evidence for them, that's why they aren't discarded. Religions have assumptions throughout them.
    Additionally, where scientific theories are to be published for criticism, religion itself is not to be debated. Where the details experiments are supposed to be published, prayer is strictly private.

    Science and religion are like oil and water, so it's loonacey to try to counter one with the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    Assumptions are reasonable when there is a reason to think that they are true, not when they seem nice.
    Yup, and most of the time that reason is because a person was socialized to follow that line of tradition. Learned behavior is a powerful force.

  8. #298
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Science isn't always provable - some of it remains theory forever. Or for an extremely long time. Creation is just one example. Other theories that they battle about are seen between sociology and psychology - nurture vs nature - and so forth.
    To reiterate your misunderstanding of 'Theory'.
    A common/unwitting, but self-serving one.

    15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
    Scientific American
    JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief
    June 2002
    [....]
    1. Evolution is only a 'theory'. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

    Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

    In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution."..."
    Link has expired but postings of it can still be found on the net googling the article title.

    The reason many have trouble with evolution is it contradicts their religous indoctrination/creation Myth.
    Gravity is also 'only' a theory.
    Any problem with that?
    Last edited by mbig; 03-20-11 at 11:09 PM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  9. #299
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    My philosophy is that I care about what is true.
    Pro-lifers care about what is actually true.

    I align more with pro-choice in my style of thought, in that whether or not something is 'true' does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays, in the system of which it is a part.

    In that way can I fight for the right to life while carrying the will and ability to end a life.

    In this way can I sympathize with a mother who is indeed carrying a unborn "person", yet justify it's death in the event of rape or incest.

    In this way can I endorse same sex marriage when it is about the children first, even though it's not a biologically congruent union.

    In this way can I oppose same sex marriage when it it's about validating a sexual identity even after it's established as a right.

    ***
    Natural science focuses on what the actual thing is. I personally couldn't care less. I'm looking for what works.

    Even if God is fake, my faith in Him works better then no faith at all in my life.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-20-11 at 11:23 PM.

  10. #300
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

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

    So - you guys believe that all scientists aren't possible Christians or believers in Creationism? You just don't see creationsim *as* a theory - when that's all it is.

    The definition of Theory:

    1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
    2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
    3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
    4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
    5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
    6. contemplation or speculation.
    7. guess or conjecture.
    And I'm not going to debate this further - I don't believe in creationism so I'm not going to defend and support something that I, myself, find to be hogwash.

    Some scientists are Christian and many believe in Creationism Other than saying "there's a conflict and this is one of them" there's really nothing more for me to point out.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

Page 30 of 42 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... 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
  •