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 35 of 42 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 420

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

  1. #341
    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 reefedjib View Post
    gravity is demonstrable, therefor, God is shown to exist. God is gravity.
    If god = gravity then why use the term "god"? Why not just say "gravity"? If god is more than just gravity then what is god?

    You seem to be equivocating.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    “The one who is devoid of knowledge, dedication and faith does not gain spiritual knowledge and ultimately perishes. The one who is sceptical, neither attains this world nor the world beyond and never remains happy.”
    Oh joy, platitudes.

    Here's one from Captain Kirk: "Without freedom of choice there is no creativity. The body dies."


    See how silly platitudes and pithy quotes are?
    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.

  2. #342
    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 scourge99 View Post
    If god = gravity then why use the term "god"? Why not just say "gravity"? If god is more than just gravity then what is god?
    "Gravity" is not a social element, whereas "God" is. The same force viewed from different contexts.

  3. #343
    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 Jerry View Post

    I would say that if God's influence can be observed, then God can be inferred to exist.
    By that logic, if you cite unicorns as the driving motive behind mowing your lawn, unicorns must exist.
    Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.

  4. #344
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Scripture would certainly agree with you.
    i don't think so, jerry.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  5. #345
    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 Jerry View Post
    God as an idea, a force, a wave, not a being or person or object.
    An idea only "exists" within the mind(s) of conscious beings. Does your god only "exist" as an idea?

    A force can be shown to exist otherwise it is just an idea.

    I don't know what you mean by "a wave". A wave of what? Seems like you are trying to use scientific jargon to explain something. I.E., you are being metaphorical and vague.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Is this not testable?
    Can you explain how you would test it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Can we not look back though history and observe how the idea of God moves through people, influencing thought, culture and behavior?
    Yep. That is exactly what a meme is.

    From wiki: A meme is a unit of social information.[2] It is a relatively newly coined term and identifies ideas or beliefs that are transmitted from one person or group of people to another. The concept comes from an analogy: as genes transmit biological information, memes can be said to transmit idea and belief information.

    A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.

    Advocates of the meme idea say that memes may evolve by natural selection, in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influencing a meme's reproductive success.

    Memes spread through the behaviors that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate the most effectively spread best. Some memes may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[7]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Don't atheists point to the belief in God as the force behind the inquisition, the crucaids, modern terrorism.
    No, its not that simple. Non-theists often point to particular worldviews held by the religious which stem from belief in specific gods, interpretations of holy books, and prophets.

    You can't get from "I believe a god exists" to "therefore I should do X". It take more than the belief in some generic entity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Don't 'people of the cloth' defend themselves with examples of how the idea or faith in God is the force behind charity, of the actions of saints, of social cohesion in every culture?
    sure. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. The religious often like to give their favored god(s) credit for all the goods things and none of the bad. E.G., if a train wreck kills 600 people then its just an unfortunate tragedy. But if a baby survives then its a miracle from god. Its quite silly the lack of critical thinking that occurs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I would say that if God's influence can be observed, then God can be inferred to exist.
    Sure you can. When one's imagination is the only limitation for explaining something then gods, pixies, demons, aliens, and a seemingly infinite amount of other things can be inferred to exist.

    Once again, it goes back to whether you care if your beliefs are true. If you do care then more rigorous standards are applied than unbridled imagination.
    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.

  6. #346
    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 scourge99 View Post
    "Gravity" isn't proven via mathematics. Gravity--the phenomenon that things fall downwards--is a fact. The "theory of gravitation" isn't "proven" with mathematics. The theory of gravitation is a theory that claims (in general) that objects accelerate at a particular speed when dropped. The theory can be represented by a particular mathematical formula. Experiments strongly support this theory because the test data conforms to its predictions.
    Your first three sentences I never claimed to be true. Math cannot prove a phenomenon. We can't say, well the math works, therefore it exists. We can, however, describe the phenomenon starting with a few basic postulates (everything does) by logically going along the path. We have yet to find a case where we see the math working, but the phenomenon is clearly NOT there (there are, however, things that might exist, can be shown via math, but not tested for via experimentation - like strings). We hypothesized by math the existence of several subatomic particles, etc. Science and math usually go hand in hand. One shows by induction that something should occur and the other verifies that it indeed holds true for every time we tried it in experiments. The logic behind it "It is done by proving that the first statement in the infinite sequence of statements is true, and then proving that if any one statement in the infinite sequence of statements is true, then so is the next one." shows that it will work in the future. Experiments can only prove that thus far, it has held up the rule, or it has yet to disprove the rule. This is strong evidence, but does not show that it should be true in the future.

    Key phrase to understand:
    The theory of gravitation is not "proven". It is strongly supported by experimentation
    That's precisely my point. Gravity itself can only be supported by by experimentation - and is strongly so. On the other hand, say newton's law - that is provable by mathematical induction (which is one of the strongest forms of reason and about as close to absolute proof as we can get). Mathematical induction is a form of deduction, too, not induction (despite its name).

    You keep comparing and contrasting things in manners that they can't be compared to one another and its just weird and wrong. It just makes your statements gobbledygook.
    I didn't see where I did that anywhere.
    Its probably because you use explain things using colloquial terms, especially when discussing technical items. This causes confusion.
    I frankly don't see where I did this either. I talked about scientific theories, mathematical proofs and that's about it. Theories in physics (especially E&M and QM, not so much CM) often include a lot of math, which blurs them. Everything I said should have been covered in any introductory math proofs course, I really don't think I'm being that unclear.
    Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.

  7. #347
    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 iamitter View Post
    By that logic, if you cite unicorns as the driving motive behind mowing your lawn, unicorns must exist.
    Unicorn comes from the Greek "unicornis", ie; Rhinoceros unicornis, aka the Indian Rhinoceros. "Unicorn" accurately refers to any horned animal of great size.

    I assure you they do exist. Here's a picture of a real unicorn:



    I would love to see you have one mow your lawn.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-22-11 at 04:57 PM.

  8. #348
    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 liblady View Post
    i don't think so, jerry.
    Well, I do, because I can quote the supporting passages. Even if scripture is a work of pure fiction, it still tells of other gods.

  9. #349
    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 scourge99 View Post
    An idea only "exists" within the mind(s) of conscious beings. Does your god only "exist" as an idea?
    In true keeping with my reputation among religious circles to often find guidance outside of cannon:

    ”In a reality that is inconceivably multidimensional, the old concepts of God are relatively meaningless. Even the term, a supreme being, is itself distortive, for you naturally project the qualities of human nature upon it. If I told you God was an idea, you would not understand what I meant, for you do not understand the dimensions in which an idea has its reality, or the energy that it can originate and propel. You do not believe in ideas in the same way that you believe in physical objects, so if I tell you that God is an idea, you will misinterpret this to mean that God is less than real–nebulous, without reality, without purpose, and without motive action.”

    Amazon.com: Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul (9781878424075): Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts: Books

  10. #350
    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=Dittohead
    A scientific theory has been proven. It is accepted as fact. Evolution is a fact. Malaria is caused by a microbe that is spread by mosquitoes, and not by "bad air", as its name implies. That, too, is a fact. Colds are caused by viruses, and not by cold weather. Yet another fact.[/QUOTE]

    That may be enough for you, but not me. Fact is something that can be seen, demonstrated, and explained in words everyone can understand, not just the words of exalted members of an exclusive scientist club.

    Show me... Prove it to me...

    My motor was idling until your post put it into gear... Thanks for the stimulu

    ricksfolly

Page 35 of 42 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... 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
  •