Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009

1966stang said:
Your intelligent diety apparently forgot to kill the Chinese and several other ancient races that existed with written histories around the time of the flood. One would think that a diety that would create the universe would be more efficient at genocide and infantacide.
Click to expand...

?????.....do you have a date for the flood?......oh wait.....you believe the same thing that Phelps does, don't you......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
did he also point out that the physicists in their laboratories don't have any more proof regarding the origin of the universe than anyone else does?.......
Click to expand...


....and yet another logical fallacy. Why do we expect Science to somehow magically know everything? I am a woodworker. Yellow woodworking glue is something that I use on an almost daily basis. I talked to a rep from a major glue company once...interesting guy. There are things Science doesn't understand about the way yellow woodworking glue bonds wood.

Why on earth would anyone think that we have perfect knowledge of the universe and its origins?

Besides, modern physicists say that knowledge of anything before the Planck moment is unlikely. You can call it god if you wish, but again, your using a god of the gaps apologetic that is sloppy thinking IMHO. It may very well be God. I don't know.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
?????.....do you have a date for the flood?......oh wait.....you believe the same thing that Phelps does, don't you......
Click to expand...

I have lots of Christian friends that are very gentlemanly. I think that it is very ungentlemanly to suggest that all literalists are equivalent to Fred Phelps. A few threads back we talked about Bias against conservative Christians and the good that they do. Please do not make bigoted statements about conservative literalistic Christians-I do not agree with what they believe, but I do not wish to defame them.
 
1966stang said:
I have lots of Christian friends that are very gentlemanly. I think that it is very ungentlemanly to suggest that all literalists are equivalent to Fred Phelps. A few threads back we talked about Bias against conservative Christians and the good that they do. Please do not make bigoted statements about conservative literalistic Christians-I do not agree with what they believe, but I do not wish to defame them.
Click to expand...

Can you seriously pretend that anyone nowadays could really believe literally in the Book of Genesis? Such 'belief' is utter cynicism, surely, entered into for profit and nothing else?
 
iolo said:
Can you seriously pretend that anyone nowadays could really believe literally in the Book of Genesis? Such 'belief' is utter cynicism, surely, entered into for profit and nothing else?
Click to expand...

Some people have limited education and a non scientific mindset. Se yes, they are literalists. What gets me is people who have masters degrees in theology who are young earth creationists or believe in a literal Adam and Eve. How could you be smart enough to get a bachelors degree, much less a masters degree/advanced degree and believe Genesis (early portions) to be literal?
 
iolo said:
Can you seriously pretend that anyone nowadays could really believe literally in the Book of Genesis? Such 'belief' is utter cynicism, surely, entered into for profit and nothing else?
Click to expand...

....and one has to wonder though how someone could be like Ken Ham, Phil Johnson, Mike Behe, or any of the other ID/ Creationist folks and live with yourself knowing that you are lying to that many people. I have too much of a conscience to do that.
 
Regarding evolution... there are a couple levels of idiot...

One is the person who does not believe that the theory has any merit, and is only willing to believe a religious story. That's anyone's right.
Another is the person who does not want schools to teach the theory and want to prevent people from being educated so that they cant choose what to believe.
 
Jarod said:
Regarding evolution... there are a couple levels of idiot...

One is the person who does not believe that the theory has any merit, and is only willing to believe a religious story. That's anyone's right.
Another is the person who does not want schools to teach the theory and want to prevent people from being educated so that they cant choose what to believe.
Click to expand...

My issue is how anyone with basic intellectual curiosity about the world could lie to themselves about basic science. Evolution and science have won the debate in terms of what is taught in most classrooms, and what is practiced in most labs.

I just think that it is sad people need to lie to themselves to believe something for their own personal comfort.
 
1966stang said:
My issue is how anyone with basic intellectual curiosity about the world could lie to themselves about basic science. Evolution and science have won the debate in terms of what is taught in most classrooms, and what is practiced in most labs.

I just think that it is sad people need to lie to themselves to believe something for their own personal comfort.
Click to expand...

Well, there are people whose brains are wired to believe mythology and stories over fact and reason. That's okay, personally, I believe both ways of thinking have their place. One problem comes when people cant seem to put each in the proper place. The bigger problem is when believers of one or the other want to keep information from the opposing wing concealed from the public.

Evolution should be taught in Biology class. Creation should be taught in a religion class.
 
1966stang said:
Why do we expect Science to somehow magically know everything?
Click to expand...

maybe because someone tried to win the argument by saying physicists had the laboratories and we didn't..........

- - - Updated - - -

1966stang said:
I have lots of Christian friends that are very gentlemanly. I think that it is very ungentlemanly to suggest that all literalists are equivalent to Fred Phelps. A few threads back we talked about Bias against conservative Christians and the good that they do. Please do not make bigoted statements about conservative literalistic Christians-I do not agree with what they believe, but I do not wish to defame them.
Click to expand...

lol....why, because it interferes with your attempt to paint all Christians with the same brush?.......
 
Jarod said:
Regarding evolution... there are a couple levels of idiot...

One is the person who does not believe that the theory has any merit, and is only willing to believe a religious story. That's anyone's right.
Another is the person who does not want schools to teach the theory and want to prevent people from being educated so that they cant choose what to believe.
Click to expand...

its interesting that I have the exact same opinion of those on the secular side of the argument.....
 
1966stang said:
Some people have limited education and a non scientific mindset. Se yes, they are literalists. What gets me is people who have masters degrees in theology who are young earth creationists or believe in a literal Adam and Eve. How could you be smart enough to get a bachelors degree, much less a masters degree/advanced degree and believe Genesis (early portions) to be literal?
Click to expand...


My Old Man, an Anglican Parson, was desperately shocked when one of those weirdoes got an Oxford First in Theology. He said the man must be so two-faced as to be utterly unfitted for the priesthood, or any honest job.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It would be ok to link any attribute to a creator but unless you can identify who that creator is and eliminate supernatural causation to the attributes created and demonstrate a testable and natural causation for those attributes created, why then it simply isn't science.

The point being, it's ok to believe in what ever spiritual philosophy you want but to call it science you have to play by the long establised ground rules of science.
Click to expand...
I understand your point. But just so we're on the same page, I haven't yet made a statement regarding any of what you just stated in my question directed to 1966stang. ;) It's hard to tell if you presume that I have based on your reply to my question to someone else. I am simply interested in what attributes certain people are even willing to give a "creator of the universe", without implying that the subject of a creator's attributes have anything to do with science... :cool:

I know the kind of reaction I'm probably going to get for saying what I'm about to say, but... I don't think the theory of evolution is all that "scientific". And before anyone explodes or emotionally attacks me without reading any further, it's not that I don't think science is involved in any aspect of the theory, but that much of it is not rooted in observable, provable facts, but instead, a preponderance of the theory is based on unproved assumptions that were built as the theory was still developing. A short example is that DNA (specifically, the double helix structure and detail thereof) had not even yet been examined while the theory of evolution had taken off in the "scientific" community. So by the time DNA was more closely examined, the "scientific" community ignored the actual probability of DNA modifying itself the way that it HAS to in order to get all the variations of life found on earth over time. Instead, they just assume that it can, despite the fact that no direct DNA observations were made to reasonably conclude this BEFORE the theory took off.

Much of the theory of evolution has been accepted blindly, without any genuine challenges to the theory's basic tenants. I believe that this happened because there was a hunger among many people (including scientists) to be able to explain life in a purely naturalistic way. And I genuinely believe that the more actual facts that appear to oppose the very tenants of the theory are found, the more quickly the scientific establishment simply insists that their theory is accepted "overwhelmingly", and is only challenged by "non-credible", "idiot", "religious" people, so as to try and silence and rebuke any critics, no matter the basis or reasonable question asked.
 
Jarod said:
Well, there are people whose brains are wired to believe mythology and stories over fact and reason. That's okay, personally, I believe both ways of thinking have their place. One problem comes when people cant seem to put each in the proper place. The bigger problem is when believers of one or the other want to keep information from the opposing wing concealed from the public.

Evolution should be taught in Biology class. Creation should be taught in a religion class.
Click to expand...

Mythologies are vitally important in that they have a kernel of truth and teach life lessons.

The danger comes in using them as absolute truths.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top