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 31 of 42 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 420

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

  1. #301
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,148

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    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:



    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.
    1 is a scientific theory. 6/7 are creationism. they are not the same.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  2. #302
    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
    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.
    The problem is that their opinion isn't based on evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    Can you see how the rules working (most of the time as long as you ignore some of them) don't show that God exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    One day I decided to accept those premises, and I experienced a great improvement since that very day.
    Just because some premise is beneficial doesn't make it true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    I need to be convinced rationally, it seems you never were.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    Because you say so. Do you care whether what you believe is true? Religion should be debated to the same extent as any other opinion. More so even, because it affects the lives of the believer and others around them profoundly just like politics does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Science and religion are like oil and water, so it's loonacey to try to counter one with the other.
    They are different ways of reasoning (or not in the case of religion). That doesn't make someone automatically wrong when they use one to counter a statement from the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    Could you have had the same kind of improvement in your life that you had when you became a Christian if you became a Buddhist?

  3. #303
    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
    Pro-lifers care about what is actually true.
    OK?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    When I say something is true I mean that it is an actually existent phenomenon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    In that way can I fight for the right to life while carrying the will and ability to end a life.
    You mean that life is something that should generally be preserved, but there are circumstances that make it necessary to end it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    How is killing a fetus and killing an infant different such that rape or incest justifies killing one but not he other?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    I believe marriage should be about people's love for each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    You still need a reason to oppose it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    This is sad.
    Last edited by Anarcho-fascist; 03-21-11 at 12:23 AM.

  4. #304
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

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

    Jumping in late and I haven't read the thread because I had missed it until now, but to answer the question about the debate on evolution, I don't see it as a debate between scientists and the religious.

    I think that the majority of the debates on evolution occur between non-scientists who believe in evolution and non-scientists who do not believe in it.

    But there are other debates about the specifics of evolution that exist between scientists as well. I don't believe those debates are about whether or not it is real, but instead they are about the details of the theory. For the most part, with relatively rare exceptions, these debates are not creation vs. Evolution or intelligent design vs. evolution.

  5. #305
    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
    The problem is that their opinion isn't based on evidence.
    Experience is just as valid. The disconect is that experience is highly subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    Can you see how the rules working (most of the time as long as you ignore some of them) don't show that God exists.
    I don't really have a problem with that. I'm fully aware that religion evolves with time, and I'm open to evolving with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    Just because some premise is beneficial doesn't make it true.
    Mhmm, I know. The assumption of God is a premise, not an established conclusion. I'm open to something more beneficial. I find motivation and guidance in the idea of God, so until I have something more motivational and/or gives more guidance, that's what I'm going with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    I need to be convinced rationally, it seems you never were.
    Everyone needs to be convinced rational. The very process of convincing is to provide or establish a rational. My experiences are highly subjective to me, so I wouldn't expect them to convince anyone of anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    Because you say so.
    Because the rules I subscribe to say so. I didn't write scripture. My family name didn't even exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    Do you care whether what you believe is true?
    I care if my beliefs work. No, I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not they are objectively, actually real. That doesn't matter. If faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes you a better person, so be it. Whether or not his noodliness is actually real doesn't matter. Behavior is what matters, not the thought process which leads to that behavior, because it's your behavior which affects others, not a mere thought in your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anarcho-fascist View Post
    Could you have had the same kind of improvement in your life that you had when you became a Christian if you became a Buddhist?
    Absolutely. In fact, back in middle school just before I converted from Wicca to Christianity, I was giving a serious look at Buddhism. Here's a sexy stud posing with a copy of The Essence of Happiness, by his holiness the Dali Lama:

    Last edited by Jerry; 03-21-11 at 01:13 AM.

  6. #306
    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 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.
    Belief in something is the emotional element in behavior conditioning, and is further reinforced when a situation you're in forces you to defend it, action and reaction, not philosophy or other disciplines.

    ricksfolly

  7. #307
    User mgblack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    03-30-11 @ 12:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    32

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

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Most theologians don't care to consistently make claims based on evidence and other verifiable sources. Its a hodgepodge of evidence, philosophy, speculation, and fervent belief.
    I don't think it's hodgepodge. The philosophic fathers of the church (Aquinas, Augustine, et al) were very good at forming a closed loop around "The Good". Religious philosophy is based on an internal consistency, albeit a consistency that does not necessitate an anchor in reality.

    The religious would disagree. They develop complex explanations based on unverifiable claims and assertions (speculation). For example, lets say you are debating a pixy-believer. They might assert that gravitation exists, causes objects to fall at 9.8m/s/s, etc... and we would all agree. But they would also claim that its caused by undetectable pixies holding everything down. Such a claim is unfalsifiable and thus useless because there are a limitless number of unfalsifiable claims that can be made.
    That's where the world of pure rationalism comes in. Empiricism and rationalism can't argue on the same ground, because one distrusts the senses and puts his/her faith in "pure logic", while the other lives by his/her senses and distrusts ungrounded logic.

    Many religious think that presenting unfalsifiable claims is a sign of the strength of their argument when it is actually a telltale sign of weakness. This is why you often hear the statement "you can't prove god doesn't exist". Rather, the religious should be saying "this is why you should believe god exists" and pointing us to objective reason and evidence why. For example, who finds this argument valid "you can;t prove pixies don't exist".
    Different philosophical starting points. Rationalists start with what they don't know ("God", perfection, "The Good") and work their way in. Empiricists begin with what they DO know, and work their way out.

    And then there are the fideists. Those who think that "faith" in their beliefs is justification. But that is a whole other can of worms. Great thinkers from long ago (both religious and non) have destroyed the basis for fideism. Suffice it to say, fideists claims have indistinguishable truth value from ANY other faith-based claim.
    I don't know anything about that stuff. I do know, though, that as the definition of truth is largely varied and/or subjective along a broad range of philosophic schools, there's no shortage to claims of truth. Heck, the claims to the existence of "truth" is in itself up for debate.

    To sum it all up: The difference between science and religion is that science finds answers and religion asserts them.

    Well there are lots of things that aren't (directly) based on grounded fact. Like which flavor of ice cream you prefer or the meaning you find in particular books.


    The religious would retort by saying they have no intention of being "scientific". That religion and science are two separate issues. The religious would be correct. Their beliefs are not scientific, but they
    1) fail to support their position with something else that would justify their claims.
    or
    2) fail to acknowledge the limitations of philosophy and speculation.
    This is where they fail.


    Rationalism and the way we think stems from our interaction and experience with the physical world. But the religious cannot support their extraordinary claims by the physical world alone. To bypass this seemingly insurmountable problem, the religious often speculate about alternate realities or "true reality" (E.G., heaven, hell, timeless gods, souls, spirits, demons, transubstantiation, resurrection, etc). They build fantastical castles in the clouds and expect you to ignore the absence of testable, observable support.
    ...and the second half of this where I mostly agree. There's an internal consistency with the religious thinkers based on beginning their quest with the unknown and working their way out. They create this alternate reality for themselves, and it's perfect to them because it's consistent and simple. Certainly something as messy and complicated as the real world can't be Godly, can it?
    Last edited by mgblack; 03-21-11 at 04:04 PM.
    "No particular results then, so far, but only an attitude of orientation, is what the pragmatic method means. The attitude of looking away from first things, principles, 'categories,' supposed necessities; and of looking towards last things, fruits, consequences, facts." - William James

  8. #308
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,505

    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.
    A theory is not a theory until it has been proven. The standard for a scientific theory is much higher than the standard of proof of guilt in court. A scientific theory is not "just a theory", meaning someone's unsupported guess.

    So, yes, science can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and then some.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  9. #309
    Sleeper Agent
    iamitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NY, NY
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    1,836

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    A theory is not a theory until it has been proven. The standard for a scientific theory is much higher than the standard of proof of guilt in court. A scientific theory is not "just a theory", meaning someone's unsupported guess.

    So, yes, science can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and then some.
    Well, actually, a scientific theory is something that has significant evidence and has yet to be disproved in an experimental lab setting. For it to be a law, it has to be mathematical.
    Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.

  10. #310
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    I think that the majority of the debates on evolution occur between non-scientists who believe in evolution and non-scientists who do not believe in it.
    Scientists believe visual effect with no clear vision of cause. Non-scientists believe visual effect is caused by a miracle.

    ricksfolly

Page 31 of 42 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... 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
  •