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 9 of 42 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 420

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

  1. #81
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter View Post
    I am still awaiting the evidence presented by the Scientific Method of Observable, Reproducible Experimentation that makes Vertical Evolution of Life from Dead Matter a fact of physical Science. What I see are Conjectures, Speculations and Cosmological Arguments based upon philosophy and prima facie hypothesis based upon the things observed Today with an unprovable assumption that the Universe has not changed throughout all antiquity, when Physical Science confirms the fact that something so mundane as WATER can and does change the rate of decay in the very same radio active elements used as a supposed STANDARD to calibrate age...with Science also proving that not one inch of the earth's surface at one time has not been covered in water at some point in its history.
    You know what I see? Another person who doesn't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Read a book before you open your mouth.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #82
    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 Ikari View Post
    You know what I see? Another person who doesn't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Read a book before you open your mouth.
    He has already been informed here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1059312935
    and here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1059312980

    He just doesn't get it or has his head in the sand.
    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.

  3. #83
    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 Walter View Post
    I am still awaiting the evidence presented by the Scientific Method of Observable, Reproducible Experimentation that makes Vertical Evolution of Life from Dead Matter a fact of physical Science.
    There is no consensus on abiogenesis amongst scientists. I've already told you this.


    From the link I gave you: CB090: Evolution without abiogenesis

    Claim CB090:
    Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have.

    Source:
    Mastropaolo, J., 1998 (2 Nov.). Re: The evolutionist: liar, believer in miracles, king of criminals. Evolution - November 1998: Re: The Evolutionist: Liar, Believer In Miracles, King of Criminals.

    Response:
    1. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
    2. Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.




    Quote Originally Posted by Walter View Post
    What I see are Conjectures, Speculations and Cosmological Arguments based upon philosophy and prima facie hypothesis based upon the things observed Today with an unprovable assumption that the Universe has not changed throughout all antiquity, when Physical Science confirms the fact that something so mundane as WATER can and does change the rate of decay in the very same radio active elements used as a supposed STANDARD to calibrate age...with Science also proving that not one inch of the earth's surface at one time has not been covered in water at some point in its history.
    Which of the many theories on abiogenesis are you referring to. If you have actually read a specific theory then please link us to the paper or research.
    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.

  4. #84
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,076

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Let me try to elaborate...

    Scripture (Book of Genesis) attempts to "marginalize" creationism. In it's most basic terms, it says a powerful spirit being - God (Jehovah...Yahway, whatever you prefer to affix to Him, if any) said "let it be so" and "IT" was...whatever "IT" is...light, darkness, water, earth (soil), air, animals, insects, plants, trees, man. Except for how life was breath into man's lungs through his nostrils, the Bible doesn't outline how all this happened...just says God made it so and, thus, it happened.

    I'm not arguing that the Bible is an absolute where creationism is concerned. I'm merely saying that the abstract of man's creation - that he came from the dust - can be supported by the science. And the science says that the building blocks of life began with one cellestial collision that contained the proper elements to form life itself. Scripture just explains it in the abstract. It doesn't say, for example, how man lived, how he adapted to his living environment. Yet, that seems to be the argument you'd like for me to make. Science has already provided numerous examples as to how man lived and ultimately survived in some of the harshest environments on Earth. So, that's not an argument I'm willing to rehash here. Just go to a museum and see such evidence for yourself. But where the theology seems to part with the science or even conflict on the issue of creationism -vs- evolution, I say there's plenty of room for both. Scripture merely attempts to explain things in a format man can understand. Unfortunately, the details...how it all began...I think science, man's knowledge, will never be that complete. But we can get damned close. Beyond that, the arguments become too irrational. Hence, the focus of this poll...the "hows" and "whys"...man may never know the answers. But I appreciate wise men seeking answers for which I am not gifted enough to reach conclusions to myself.

    Sidenote: I think most men view scripture incorrectly. My take: The Bible isn't necessarily cookie-cutter one world view. It would be great if the world did treat each other with common decency that much of biblical scripture espouses. Unfortunately...

    Yes, religions divide man. I won't argue that. But, IMO, I see the Bible as merely a guide book to teach man lessons of life, individual responsibilities, human behavioral patterns that if ignored we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes men before us have made, and on how to be kind and charitable towards one another especially to those who are less fortunate. Doesn't mean you give to everyone who has his hand out. For some are lazy and only wish to take advantage of one's kindness and generosity. But overall, we are to love one another. We're all part of the human element. But I'll save that for another debate. Bottom line here is IMO if you're looking at the Bible as an absolute, I'd say you've missed the mark. But until that day when I come face-to-face with my Makers (if such a God truly exist; I choose to believe there is something out there more powerful than myself), then I hope to be afforded the opportunity to ask these and many such questions. Until then, I choose to put my faith in this good Book of Spiritual Enlightenment and try as best I can to live my life conforming to the standards it setforth as best I can. I fall short at times, but part of repentance is realizing your shortcomings and trying not to repeat them again and again.

    We exist, We adapt, we evol...
    That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying religion is irreconcilable with modern science because it was thought up by people who had little knowledge of the world around them outside of their own interactions with members of their communities. Reconciling the claims made in Bible texts with modern study of evolution would be like reconciling the nuclear physics with the Mayan gods. There's simply no logic to it. You wouldn't take the astronomy known in the 14th century BC and reconcile it with modern astronomy. Why? Because there is no evidence to support the claim that Anubis is the God who pulls the sun every morning. You wouldn't try to reconcile the belief that Zeus throws down thunderbolts with meteorology. So why do you do this with the Christian god and evolution?
    Last edited by Hatuey; 02-28-11 at 10:48 PM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #85
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,529

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying religion is irreconcilable with modern science because it was thought up by people who had little knowledge of the world around them outside of their own interactions with members of their communities. Reconciling the claims made in Bible texts with modern study of evolution would be like reconciling the nuclear physics with the Mayan gods. There's simply no logic to it. You wouldn't take the astronomy known in the 14th century BC and reconcile it with modern astronomy. Why? Because there is no evidence to support the claim that Anubis is the God who pulls the sun every morning. You wouldn't try to reconcile the belief that Zeus throws down thunderbolts with meteorology. So why do you do this with the Christian god and evolution?
    Really? I don't understand why you would say that.

    Lets just say (for the sake of argument) God did talk to ancient man through his dreams etc. Now we know from scripture mans hand in writing his observations etc were not controlled directly by God. So if an ancient man was trying to get across the concept of space, water would be a good metaphor etc. I am just using the Christian Bible as I know it best, but this could apply to many other holy books.

    Our observations are better and we have the language and understanding to express difficult concepts better than a man 2000 years ago.

    Ancient people speaking figuratively and substituting items and concepts that language of the time could not express is just one of the ways we better understand ancient writings and the thoughts behind them. This goes for holy books of the time without exception. Not everything in them was meant to be taken literally. The story of the flood for instance. I think it was a localized event (but I could be wrong) but for the people writing it, it was their whole world, so they wrote it from that perspective. This is partly why we see many story's of the flood around the world. Many localized events that encompassed writer or story tellers whole world at the time.

    In the end no reconciliation is necessary because the physical and metaphysical don't need to reconcile. One is a matter of faith, the other a matter of the preponderance of the evidence. One does not necessarily contradict the other.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 03-01-11 at 01:01 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  6. #86
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

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

    I said "yes" but it makes more sense if it was changed from "the religious" to "religion". It is not necessarily the religious, as many have pointed out, that are willfully ignorant to facts (and museums apparently). However, it is the establishment of religion (take the Mormon and Catholic churches for instance) that are constantly fighting science and progress every step of the way!
    Ted Cruz is the dumbest person alive.

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,692

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Walter View Post
    I am still awaiting the evidence presented by the Scientific Method of Observable, Reproducible Experimentation that makes Vertical Evolution of Life from Dead Matter a fact of physical Science. What I see are Conjectures, Speculations and Cosmological Arguments based upon philosophy and prima facie hypothesis based upon the things observed Today with an unprovable assumption that the Universe has not changed throughout all antiquity, when Physical Science confirms the fact that something so mundane as WATER can and does change the rate of decay in the very same radio active elements used as a supposed STANDARD to calibrate age...with Science also proving that not one inch of the earth's surface at one time has not been covered in water at some point in its history.

  8. #88
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    Redress simply meant it's those that are informed v. those that aren't, or are wilfully ignorant, though it's funny to see that you automatically assumed she was calling religious people ignorant.
    But we cannot ignore the fact that some religious people are. 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.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #89
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You know what I see? Another person who doesn't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Read a book before you open your mouth.
    But that would result in him no longer being a creationist. Creationism only survives in education, fact free zones. Educating oneself results in a creationist no longer being a creationist, or a creationist who knows their belief is wrong, but is purely in it to milk the money from his former ilk. Doctor Snelling for example. Who has submitted real geology papers while moon lighting as a fake creationist for the paycheck.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #90
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,529

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

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    But that would result in him no longer being a creationist. Creationism only survives in education, fact free zones. Educating oneself results in a creationist no longer being a creationist, or a creationist who knows their belief is wrong, but is purely in it to milk the money from his former ilk. Doctor Snelling for example. Who has submitted real geology papers while moon lighting as a fake creationist for the paycheck.
    Not true.

    Being confused about the difference between abiogenesis and evolution has nothing at all to do with "him no longer being a creationist." I am a creationist and yet evolution is a fact. It has not changed my view or rocked the foundations of my faith. Now details about certain aspects of evolution are questionable, but in the end for the most part it is supported by good evidence.

    Your post is mainly baiting, blanket statements and misinformation.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 03-01-11 at 09:42 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Page 9 of 42 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •