Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
But their is something wrong with trying to disguise a religious belief as science and then mandating that it be taught along side valid science when it is not. It is intellectually dishonest and incompetent.
Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009
- Thread starter Mott the Hoople
- Start date
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
As I pointed out earlier it is essentially a god of the gaps argument...which just does not even make sense from the standpoint of religious apologetics.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I have heard others who are better read than I on religion that creationism is bad religion, as well as, bad science. I can only speak for the science part of the argument.
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
Repeat after me very slowly people...science does not deal with the supernatural. I might as well try to make my saw make straight cuts by performing an exorcism. The supernatural is beyond the defined scope of science. Both theologians and scientists realize this.
I did not say there was. I said it is not arrogant to think there is no creator. This is America.
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
Certainly given two contradictory stories of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis... THAT should be your first clue that the text might not be meant to be interpreted literally. The ancient people who wrote these texts were not stupid.
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
Exactly. People of good faith come up with different conclusions on difficult questions... Why are we so threatened by this?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, your constant lies are quite redundant. Like a coward you again made accusations, but are too much of a pussy to actually post anything that backs up your lies.
No, what I stated was correct. Your obsession with absolutes is what makes you such a moron. I stated that IN YOUR LINK, it stated that it was not generally used... not that it was NEVER used. But you again feel compelled to lie and create straw men so that you can beat up on that position. I quoted DIRECTLY from your site... so there should not have been confusion on your part. But then again, you are an idiot, a coward and a liar... so I really shouldn't be shocked that the above is your response.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Funny, but as I pointed out, you could say the same thing about women... why is there a 10% gap in belief due to gender?
It is as originally stated long ago, predominantly a question of religious beliefs... it is those that believe Genesis is literal that refuse to accept evolution, for the two cannot coincide. Outside of the fundamentalist, it is those that are less educated that tend to doubt/disbelieve in evolution.
Gould's NOMA would be fine but the IDers and creationists won't honor it. They take any mention of science as a personal attack and insist that you reference their silly beliefs.
But what I was commenting on was not God but whether or not it is arrogant to think we are the most powerful beings in the universe. There is nothing really arrogant about it. It's just a way for the science denier to insult those that don't believe in God or wish to pretend it is any more likely than Russell's teapot. He thinks there is some virtue in being a coward and not taking a position that would upset his ignorant friends.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
There IS NO SCIENCE involved when it comes to the existence of God. NONE. If you feel otherwise, present the SCIENCE that backs up your position.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Precisely. Yet he continues to say I deny science because I said it is arrogant to proclaim one way or another that God exists/doesn't exist and pretend it is based on 'the best available science.'
I have already backed them up.
You are the one lying by moving the goalpost to another continent and pretending that I claimed certainty about the non-existence of God. You have done it repeatedly now.
Again, the part you quoted was not well sourced. There was nothing to validate the claim of how it was "generally" used.
But who really gives a fuck? How it is used or defined has no real bearing on the material facts of whether we are apes. You are once again focusing on semantics and denying the science. The science classing us as apes has been disclosed since Huxley/Darwin and extremely well established since the 60s.
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
Okay, let's try reality for a minute. Everyone, be they pope Francis or Richard Dawkins has moments of doubt's about what they actually believe when they are memorizing their bedroom ceiling at three ayem. Its called being human. We should embrace this as part of who we are rather than being threatened by it.
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
...and your discussion with each other is quickly becoming more heat than light. I actually like both of you...how can we honestly bring this back to a sane conversation?
Canceled.2014.2
Canceled
And here we have...the sixty four thousand dollar answer.
Liar. You said it was arrogant to think that we are the most powerful beings in the universe. I responded that...
All of our available evidence suggests we are. But there is obviously a lot we don't know.
It is arrogant to think we MUST be the most powerful or that we must be the special creation of the most powerful being in the universe.
...
Obviously, there was no claim of certainty, on my part, and hedges on the extent of our knowledge. Still there is nothing arrogant about taking a position based on the best evidence or science.
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
I'm on board with Einstein and a creator. If humans are the most powerful being, then that's not saying much, universally speaking.
Sure there is. When we are talking about an actual God and actual claims. The creation story and the flood are complete bullshit. Science backs up the fact that those claims are inaccurate.
When you try to turn it into Russell's teapot, science can not offer much proof against such silliness, but science certainly can be used to form an opinion on it or to establish what we might THINK about it. It's not arrogant to dismiss the teapot argument. It is cowardly not to or pretend it should be taken seriously.
You are a L-I-A-R.
To "think we are the most powerful beings in the universe" does not mean "to proclaim one way or the another that God exists." My response made it quite clear that there could be no certainty on the proposition, which was not the existence of God but whether we were the most powerful beings in the universe. Again, based on the available evidence or science, there is nothing wrong with thinking we are the most powerful beings in the universe.
Last edited: