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 38 of 42 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 420

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

  1. #371
    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
    The idea of god existed; the form of the FSM is purely aesthetic. You could have chosen any other form for your god and the idea would remain unchanged.

    That's all I've argued here.
    In that case I apologize. I thought you were arguing something else.
    Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.

  2. #372
    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 Dittohead not! View Post
    OK, I can buy that. But, why is it that people seem to think that evolution somehow is related to the concept of god? There really is no conflict between the two.
    A young earth creationist would see a clear contradiction. Religion is telling them that the world is 7,000 years old, and even gives a detailed linage to substantiated it's claim. Then they see that science tells them that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and provides evidence in support for that claim.

    Typically, young-earth creationists are creationists first, because the authority of biblical commands have a higher impact on their immediate day-to-day life then do some fossils in a museum in another state, in their view.

    What I enjoy about day-age creationism is that it resolves the conflict between faith and science in such a way that neither the faith nor science have to change at all. The person has to change, though, which is something a literalist would have a hard time doing.

  3. #373
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    Assuming we're discussing a sense of spirituality, then there is no contradiction between theism and science. It is only when someone tries to assert a factual basis in scripture that problems arise.

    Personally, I always viewed ancient religion as the science if its day. People took their understanding of the world, such as it was, and used that knowledge to logically deduce answers to their questions. Why is there lightning? Because someone is up there throwing it. It fits with humans' idea about the creation of things, an act performed by humans over nature. Just as cultures that placed more superiority on nature tended to make their spiritual beings animals. They extrapolated from the things the knew, and applied a logical understanding to the things they did not. That's a strong foundation of the scientific method.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  4. #374
    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 Paschendale View Post
    Assuming we're discussing a sense of spirituality, then there is no contradiction between theism and science. It is only when someone tries to assert a factual basis in scripture that problems arise.

    Personally, I always viewed ancient religion as the science if its day. People took their understanding of the world, such as it was, and used that knowledge to logically deduce answers to their questions. Why is there lightning? Because someone is up there throwing it. It fits with humans' idea about the creation of things, an act performed by humans over nature. Just as cultures that placed more superiority on nature tended to make their spiritual beings animals. They extrapolated from the things the knew, and applied a logical understanding to the things they did not. That's a strong foundation of the scientific method.
    Makes one wonder, then, how the very religious ancient people knew the earth's dimensions, long before Marco-Polo, without the benefit of satellites; and then used those dimensions to build the Great Pyramid, something we still can't do today.

    It doesn't seem out of place to you to assert the ancients knew practicably nothing while creating such mindblowingly accurate calendars like the Mayan did?

    Either they had a sophisticated form of science, which rules out your dumb-as-a-cave-man accusation, or their religion told them, which rules out lame-explanation-for-what-they-couldn't-explain accusation.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-23-11 at 03:11 PM.

  5. #375
    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
    Makes one wonder, then, how the very religious ancient people knew the earth's dimensions, long before Marco-Polo, without the benefit of satellites; and then used those dimensions to build the Great Pyramid, something we still can't do today.

    It doesn't seem out of place to you to assert the ancients knew practicably nothing while creating such mindblowingly accurate calendars like the Mayan did?

    Either they had a sophisticated form of science, which rules out your dumb-as-a-cave-man accusation, or their religion told them, which rules out lame-explanation-for-what-they-couldn't-explain accusation.
    well, their religion must have been far superior to religions today.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

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


  6. #376
    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
    A young earth creationist would see a clear contradiction. Religion is telling them that the world is 7,000 years old, and even gives a detailed linage to substantiated it's claim. Then they see that science tells them that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and provides evidence in support for that claim.
    Day age creationism has plenty of contradictions with what we have discovered studying nature (science).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Typically, young-earth creationists are creationists first, because the authority of biblical commands have a higher impact on their immediate day-to-day life then do some fossils in a museum in another state, in their view.
    Typically, day-age creationists are creationists first, because the authority of the bible has a higher impact on their immediate day-to-day life then do some fossils in a museum in another state, in their view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    What I enjoy about day-age creationism is that it resolves the conflict between faith and science in such a way that neither the faith nor science have to change at all. The person has to change, though, which is something a literalist would have a hard time doing.
    Day age creationism has just as many conflicts with what we have discovered about the world (science) as young earth creationism does!! The criticism is not about 24 hour days but of the sequence of events. No timescale makes Genesis any more valid because it contradicts what we know in just about every way.

    Look at what the bible says:
    1) Earth was formed before the sun
    2) An aquatic universe
    3) Grass and flowering plants coming before all other plants when they were in fact late arrivals
    4) An early watery earth
    5) The sun coming after the planets and after plants were already on earth
    6) Birds and whales preceding other animals.

    How much evidence and studies do you have to disregard to think this story is an accurate portrayal of events? It should be painfully obvious that it is a myth from ancient people making guesswork that has since been proven false in modern times.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/religi...eationism.html


    1) Earth was formed before the sun
    Day 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And the earth was without form, and void;
    Day 4: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


    2) An aquatic universe
    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

    And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

    And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

    3) Grass and flowering plants coming before all other plants when they were in fact late arrivals
    Day 3: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    4) An early watery earth
    And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

    5) The sun coming after the planets and after plants were already on earth
    Day 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And the earth was without form, and void;

    Day 3: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    Day 4: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    6) Birds and whales preceding other animals.
    Day 5: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    Day 6: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good
    Last edited by scourge99; 03-23-11 at 03:28 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.

  7. #377
    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
    Day age creationism has plenty of contradictions with what we have discovered studying nature (science).
    I would be happy to offer the day-age resolution these issues, but I understand that your purpose is not to have peaceful resolution, but to persecute believers, so I read your posts with that in mind.

    Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation

  8. #378
    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
    well, their religion must have been far superior to religions today.
    It would seem the same could be said for their science.

    IMO inventing the idea that science and religion should be thought of as 2 distinct and separate entities was a mistake.

  9. #379
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,513

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Makes one wonder, then, how the very religious ancient people knew the earth's dimensions, long before Marco-Polo, without the benefit of satellites; and then used those dimensions to build the Great Pyramid, something we still can't do today.

    It doesn't seem out of place to you to assert the ancients knew practicably nothing while creating such mindblowingly accurate calendars like the Mayan did?

    Either they had a sophisticated form of science, which rules out your dumb-as-a-cave-man accusation, or their religion told them, which rules out lame-explanation-for-what-they-couldn't-explain accusation.
    That is an interesting question. Of course, people thousands of years ago were just as smart as people are today, but most of them never got more than a few miles from their birthplace, and only an elite few could read and write. How, indeed, did they know that the Earth was round, let alone its dimensions? Yahoo answers gives us a clue:

    If you watch a lunar eclipse, you can see the Moon entering the shadow of the Earth, which is a circle on the sky. If they could figure out the phases of the Moon and the reason for it, they could figure out that the Earth was round.
    That still didn't stop the religious dogmatists from insisting that the Earth was flat and was the center of the universe long after the truth was known.

    Much like the religious dogmatists today are insisting that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that evolution is therefore incorrect.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  10. #380
    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 Dittohead not! View Post
    Much like the religious dogmatists today are insisting that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that evolution is therefore incorrect.
    The notion that the Earth is flat is a fairly modern idea.

    In context to how long man has been around, observing the world he lives in and partaking of various religions, it wasn't until the relatively new Catholic church deliberately used a erroneous literal take on a mistranslated text to keep political control of a local region, that anyone thought such a thing. And what's more, even to the people in that aria, at that time, either knew it was a lie and enforced it under pain of death, or played along to escape being burned to death. Beat, torture and terrorize anyone long enough and they will say whatever you want them to say.

    And today, even the Catholic church itself doesn't teach the flat-earth theory anymore....so why do people still bring it up?

    It's a relatively modern, short-lived lie. I've found no evidence that the ancients thought such a thing; in fact all evidence is to the contrary.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-23-11 at 05:57 PM.

Page 38 of 42 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... 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
  •