Majority of Republicans believe in literal creationism

Dixie said:
No, I never stated I believed God was energy. I believe God is LIKE a form of energy. Please note the difference. If you wish to believe God is "fake" or not real, that is entirely up to you... free will! The evidence, however, is overwhelming. I believe you are absolutely wrong.
Click to expand...

In what ways is god LIKE a FORM of energy? ANd what FORM of energy is he like?

Maybe he's the laws of physics themselves? Or a giant scientist 5 million feet tall? Or maybe he's everything?

God is all of these and more, yet, a bunch of crap.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs....he's better educated than most Democrats as well.....
Click to expand...
Don't know what makes you think that. The facts are that 29% of the US voting population has a college degree. Of those 34.8% are Conservatives, 44.8% are Liberals and 20.4% are moderates. That's a whoping 28.% more Liberals have a college degree then conservatives. When you up that to the most elite academic education, science, a whopping 75% are liberal and the most educated people of all, those with graduate degrees in a science discipline over 90% with a graduate degree in science are liberal. So it would seem that not only is their a direct correlation to the quantity of education and being liberal but there is also a direct correlation with the quaity of education and being liberal. That is, the facts show that those with the most and the best education are mostly liberal. The facts also show that one of the most poorly educated are social conservatives who only represent about 12% of those who hold college degrees.
 
AssHatZombie said:
In what ways is god LIKE a FORM of energy? ANd what FORM of energy is he like?

Maybe he's the laws of physics themselves? Or a giant scientist 5 million feet tall? Or maybe he's everything?

God is all of these and more, yet, a bunch of crap.
Click to expand...

Like a form of energy we are incapable of understanding because our knowledge is limited and not everything is known to us. Think about it, just over a few hundred years ago, (a very minuscule amount of time in the scope of eternity) people believed the world was flat, and the sun revolved around it. Just a hundred or so years ago, we didn't realize microbial life could live within the human body. Less than 100 years ago, we didn't know what DNA was. All of these things we've come to know and understand over time, they weren't always a part of human knowledge. Before we knew them, we didn't know them, dumbass! So who is to say, God or the entity people recognize as God, is not something we simply don't understand yet? You can't say that for certain, all you can do is yammer around like a fucking idiot, acting like you know all there is to know or ever will be to know, and nothing new can ever be learned, because you already know it all!

POSSIBILITY.... it exists! It doesn't matter what you THINK you know, it doesn't matter what you presume to know for certain! This is the basis for ALL SCIENCE and all scientific methodology, the POSSIBILITY of things we may not yet understand. It is through curiosity about the unexplained, continuing to ask questions, rather than drawing assumptions (as you have here) that we advance in knowledge and understanding. Once we've adopted your bird-brained mentality, we are doomed to never learn anything ever again, and science is DEAD!
 
Damocles said:
To make you ask silly questions. Do you think an all powerful god of some sort might use evolution to create the world? What if that god isn't done yet?
Click to expand...

You hit the nail, right on the head.
Who's to say that we're the final creation, that God was planning on?
 
Ice Dancer said:
It's the complexity of the organism combined with its specificity that underscores the argument for intelligent design. Are you saying that there are not molecular biologists who themselves subscribe to ID theory?
Click to expand...
None who have published any peer reviewed research on the topic that I am aware of. I would also agree with you that said argument does underscore the argument for ID. I'd also state that this is a very flawed logic for the following reason. You can infer design based upon complex specificity until the cows come home but until you identify this designer and their design, you have, from a scientific and a logical standpoint, nothing.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
None who have published any peer reviewed research on the topic that I am aware of. I would also agree with you that said argument does underscore the argument for ID. I'd also state that this is a very flawed logic for the following reason. You can infer design based upon complex specificity until the cows come home but until you identify this designer and their design, you have, from a scientific and a logical standpoint, nothing.
Click to expand...

Not true. We can't identify what causes or creates black holes, dark energy, anti-matter... we can't even predict with certainty, what causes gravity. There are any number of phenomenon in our universe, we have NO explanation for in science, as we currently understand science. You are making the assumption that, since we can't identify a creator, there must not be a creator. That is patently ignorant and foolish, and devoid of any scientific reasoning whatsoever. It has NEVER been used as a basis for ANY study in science, about ANY thing we've ever studied.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
None who have published any peer reviewed research on the topic that I am aware of. I would also agree with you that said argument does underscore the argument for ID. I'd also state that this is a very flawed logic for the following reason. You can infer design based upon complex specificity until the cows come home but until you identify this designer and their design, you have, from a scientific and a logical standpoint, nothing.
Click to expand...

In fact, let me take it a step further, if we EVER applied this standard to ANYTHING we've ever examined in science, we would have NEVER discovered a damn thing! We would have drawn assumptions and made conclusions, based on what we didn't know, and we would have avoided examining further or asking any more questions.
 
Dixie said:
Not true. We can't identify what causes or creates black holes, dark energy, anti-matter... we can't even predict with certainty, what causes gravity. There are any number of phenomenon in our universe, we have NO explanation for in science, as we currently understand science. You are making the assumption that, since we can't identify a creator, there must not be a creator. That is patently ignorant and foolish, and devoid of any scientific reasoning whatsoever. It has NEVER been used as a basis for ANY study in science, about ANY thing we've ever studied.
Click to expand...


That's fucking stupid. We have evidence of the existence of black holes, dark energy and anti-matter. We don't have evidence of a "creator."
 
NigelTufnel said:
That's fucking stupid. We have evidence of the existence of black holes, dark energy and anti-matter. We don't have evidence of a "creator."
Click to expand...

Yes we do. We have plenty of evidence, it's all around us! We don't have PROOF... but, you don't have PROOF of what causes black holes, dark energy, or anti-matter.
 
Dixie said:
Yes we do. We have plenty of evidence, it's all around us! We don't have PROOF... but, you don't have PROOF of what causes black holes, dark energy, or anti-matter.
Click to expand...


Proof of cause of a something and proof that the thing exists are two different things. I don't need proof of a cause of black holes to have evidence of their existence.
 
Dixie said:
Yes we do. We have plenty of evidence, it's all around us! We don't have PROOF... but, you don't have PROOF of what causes black holes, dark energy, or anti-matter.
Click to expand...

My goodness Trixie, you spout a lot of rubbish but this time you are beating even your own record for stupidity.

Open your eyes man. Open your mind and stop listening to the religious loonies whose sole intent is to find American dummies and take all their money.

Science is not about proof its about questioning evidence. That is the human condition.

You cannot prove the existence of any deity yet you blindly follow the charlatans that profit from your ignorance.
How bloody stupid is that?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The single most cogent observation of design is simplicity. Look at the most complex engineering design and you'll see it broke down into very simple elements, circles, ovals, triangles, lines and curves, etc, etc, so complexity is actually not a evidence of design, rather simplicity is.
Click to expand...

DNA_damage.jpg
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Don't know what makes you think that. The facts are that 29% of the US voting population has a college degree. Of those 34.8% are Conservatives, 44.8% are Liberals and 20.4% are moderates. That's a whoping 28.% more Liberals have a college degree then conservatives. When you up that to the most elite academic education, science, a whopping 75% are liberal and the most educated people of all, those with graduate degrees in a science discipline over 90% with a graduate degree in science are liberal. So it would seem that not only is their a direct correlation to the quantity of education and being liberal but there is also a direct correlation with the quaity of education and being liberal. That is, the facts show that those with the most and the best education are mostly liberal. The facts also show that one of the most poorly educated are social conservatives who only represent about 12% of those who hold college degrees.
Click to expand...

and yet the majority of liberals fail to understand the most basic arguments....ironic isn't it.....

as to your first question, "what makes me think that" is a comparison of Dixie's posts to those of the average liberal posting on this board.....most of whom have trouble carrying a conversation, let alone an argument.....
 
NigelTufnel said:
That's fucking stupid. We have evidence of the existence of black holes, dark energy and anti-matter. We don't have evidence of a "creator."
Click to expand...

I believe he was referring to the fact you have no evidence of "cause".......

NigelTufnel said:
Proof of cause of a something and proof that the thing exists are two different things. I don't need proof of a cause of black holes to have evidence of their existence.
Click to expand...

we both observe the existence.....you posit one cause, we posit another......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I believe he was referring to the fact you have no evidence of "cause".......
Click to expand...


But he's saying that because we have have no evidence of "cause" that we cannot know that the observable phenomena exist. Which is fucking stupid.

Mott's point (if I understood correct, and Mott can correct me if not) was that where you have a theory that something was designed you need to have proof of a designer for the theory to have a modicum of validity. Where you claim that the universe was designed you need a designer. By contrast, where I don't claim that black holes, anti-matter and dark energy were "designed," there is no need for me to come up with a cause for their existence.
 
NigelTufnel said:
But he's saying that because we have have no evidence of "cause" that we cannot know that the observable phenomena exist. Which is fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
????.....that isn't what I read.....

Mott's point (if I understood correct, and Mott can correct me if not) was that where you have a theory that something was designed you need to have proof of a designer for the theory to have a modicum of validity.
Click to expand...

but that is only necessary if I am trying to prove to someone else that there is a designer......I can observe something and draw a conclusion from what I see that it is designed, and therefore choose to believe a designer exists

Where you claim that the universe was designed you need a designer. By contrast, where I don't claim that black holes, anti-matter and dark energy were "designed," there is no need for me to come up with a cause for their existence.
Click to expand...

true, if "shit just happens" satisfies you......it doesn't satisfy me.....
 
NigelTufnel said:
Which is a fun rhetorical game and I'm sure you get your giggles from it, but it ain't science my friend.
Click to expand...

are you saying science isn't interested in causes?.....what do you do when you run up against causes which cannot be explained by science?.......after all, gravity doesn't NEED to exist, does it?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top