Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009

Superfreak said:
It is also incredibly arrogant to think we are the most powerful beings in the universe.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jarod said:
Its incredibly arrogant to think that we are so smart that if we cant understand it, it must be built by magic.
Click to expand...

Jarod said:
I agree, who thinks that?
Click to expand...

You said that it was arrogant to think that if we don't understand it, it must be magic.

If there is a more powerful being (what some call God) then it wouldn't be magic you dolt. Your statement made it appear that you only thought there were the two options.
 
Superfreak said:
Again GARUD... look to the inner cities where education is typically in shambles... the inner cities vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Regardless of states they live in.
Click to expand...

So you have one small example. Look at the rural areas where education is poor and evolution is kept to a minimum, they vote overwhelmingly conservative.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
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.
Click to expand...

And our evidence is restricted in most ways to our planet. We know very little about what else is out there. So 'our evidence' is irrelevant to my point.

you are trying to argue semantics, which shows your desperation to further your atheistic views.
 
Superfreak said:
You said that it was arrogant to think that if we don't understand it, it must be magic.

If there is a more powerful being (what some call God) then it wouldn't be magic you dolt. Your statement made it appear that you only thought there were the two options.
Click to expand...

The concept that GOD created something in a way we cant understand is what we would call Magic. If you are able to do something that seemingly breaks the rules of the natural world as we understand them, you have done what we call magic.

There are plenty of options, we could have a magical God for example. There could be more intelligent beings in outer space... there could be more intelligent beings right here on Earth who evade our senses. You could call them God if you chose, or magic or simply a more intelligent being.

The God I understand transcends intelligence, that's not even an issue or a concept to use when describing the God I know. It seems very arrogant to insist that God be described by such a human concept.
 
Superfreak said:
You said that it was arrogant to think that if we don't understand it, it must be magic.

If there is a more powerful being (what some call God) then it wouldn't be magic you dolt. Your statement made it appear that you only thought there were the two options.
Click to expand...

I said it was arrogant to think that it MUST be magic. It would also be arrogant to assume that anything we don't understand is not magic. If we don't understand it, we don't understand what it is.
 
Jarod said:
The concept that GOD created something in a way we cant understand is what we would call Magic. If you are able to do something that seemingly breaks the rules of the natural world as we understand them, you have done what we call magic.
Click to expand...

Therein lies your problem. You think the rules of our world must somehow apply to the universe as a whole. Science, to the uneducated, can appear to be 'magic'. That doesn't make it magic.
 
Coward said:
As has been stated many times on the board before, both right AND left ignore science when it goes against their ideological beliefs.

Many on the left do not believe an abortion ends a human life.

Many on the left believe by shouting consensus over and over again that somehow makes man responsible for the majority of climate change.
Click to expand...

Try to stay on topic. You constantly attempt to change the subject whenever the ideas of some people who share some of your ideological beliefs are criticized. YOU are ignoring the science and send the message that it is okay with you as long as they have the right partisan approach.

Your views on the other subjects are not supported by any science, though.
 
Superfreak said:
Therein lies your problem. You think the rules of our world must somehow apply to the universe as a whole. Science, to the uneducated, can appear to be 'magic'. That doesn't make it magic.
Click to expand...

I do not think the rules of our world must somehow apply to the universe as a whole. You make a lot of assumptions when we discuss issues. From my perspective magic does not exist, its simply a word people use to explain something they do not understand. Its the same way may people use the word "God".
 
Superfreak said:
which is anecdotal and thus irrelevant.
Click to expand...


OK, and your numbers are proof and fully relevant. I don't have the inclination to study the numbers and show you that the answer to this question is not ascertainable. I personally believe that many social conservatives, especially the religious ones, have a vested interest in keeping the population ignorant.

That type of Religion festers in an ignorant population. Much of the nations inner-city population is very socially conservative, and give money to socially conservative churches, yet they often vote for Democrats based on economic and racial issues.
 
Superfreak said:
And our evidence is restricted in most ways to our planet. We know very little about what else is out there. So 'our evidence' is irrelevant to my point.

you are trying to argue semantics, which shows your desperation to further your atheistic views.
Click to expand...

Nope, I am arguing against your ridiculous assertion that there is some virtue of humility in belief absent of proof or that basing your belief on available evidence is somehow a vice. You have it all backwards, as usual.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Nope, I am arguing against your ridiculous assertion that there is some virtue of humility in belief absent of proof or that basing your belief on available evidence is somehow a vice. You have it all backwards, as usual.
Click to expand...

We have a very small piece of the puzzle, but much more of it than we had 100 years ago. Our theories and understanding of the natural world work well for our current environment, but we are only beginning to see that at the extremes the rules all break down. This is not magic, in my opinion but the search for a universal theory that explains the entire natural world is a project that will take many thousands of years.
 
1966stang said:
You have to wonder how much of denial of science on the right is done just because these people are clueless as to how science actually works.
Click to expand...

I am amused that you think it is "science." Those same "scientists" were warning of global cooling in the 1970's.

Another Ice Age?

Monday, June 24, 1974

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have...

Read more: Another Ice Age? - TIME http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html#ixzz2pjjnht74

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
 
Jarod said:
OK, and your numbers are proof and fully relevant. I don't have the inclination to study the numbers and show you that the answer to this question is not ascertainable. I personally believe that many social conservatives, especially the religious ones, have a vested interest in keeping the population ignorant.

That type of Religion festers in an ignorant population. Much of the nations inner-city population is very socially conservative, and give money to socially conservative churches, yet they often vote for Democrats based on economic and racial issues.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... yeah Garud... because that is why so many inner cities are run by Democrats, that is why they vote so overwhelmingly for Democrats... because they are really just conservatives.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Nope, I am arguing against your ridiculous assertion that there is some virtue of humility in belief absent of proof or that basing your belief on available evidence is somehow a vice. You have it all backwards, as usual.
Click to expand...

Yes, we know... you are an atheist... we get it... you think we are the most powerful beings in the universe... but you aren't arrogant.
 
Rana said:
Quoting Rush Limbaugh? lol
Click to expand...

No... not quoting Rush limbaugh... funny how you try to associate everything with him. Obsessed with that idiot are you?

An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns. Democrats have a huge advantage (63 percent) with voters earning less than $15,000 per year. This advantage carries forward for individuals earning up to $50,000 per year, and then turns in the Republicans’ favor — with just 36 percent of individuals earning more than $200,000 per year supporting Democrats.
Click to expand...

http://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-democrats/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top