Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#232
#232
hog88 said:
No, not a hog farmer. It's called google, try it sometime.

We 100% disagree on the origin of life and humanity as there is ZERO hard evidence supporting life began by sheer happenstance.

We do not disagree on evolution, plants/animals have evolved to adapt however one animal doesn't evolve into another completely different one.
Click to expand...

Your screen name and the fact that you referenced hogfarmer.com was what lead to the question.

Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#233
#233
FLVOL69 said:
His screen name is septic...maybe he's a honey dipper by his logic.
Click to expand...

It's not my logic, I'm simply pointing out what an overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes.

Perhaps you should assert your answers, get peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize.

Or sit back, make ad hominem attacks and look silly.

Whichever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#234
#234
Septic said:
It's not my logic, I'm simply pointing out what an overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes.

Perhaps you should assert your answers, get peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize.

Or sit back, make ad hominem attacks and look silly.

Whichever.
Click to expand...

As opposed to making appeals to authority?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#235
#235
Septic said:
It's not my logic, I'm simply pointing out what an overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes.

Perhaps you should assert your answers, get peer reviewed and collect your Nobel prize.

Or sit back, make ad hominem attacks and look silly.







Whichever.
Click to expand...


No you assumed hog was a hog farmer..so I'm assuming you pump out porta shiiters for a living. See how that works ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#236
#236
MercyPercy said:
We aren't talking about philosophy, we are discussing science. You cannot separate them, which is the anchor that drags down every argument you put forth.
Click to expand...

You can't have one with out the other. TRUT and PKT have both said this.

If I remember correctly philosophy is the back bone to science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#240
#240
VOLatile said:
You're so funny. If you were really open-minded, you would research it for yourself. There are countless books and educational courses that detail theory of evolution. I would start with The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins. It's an exceptionally easy and entertaining read.
Click to expand...
Dawkins. There's a guy with no agenda. Good grief.
 
#242
#242
Roustabout said:
Dawkins. There's a guy with no agenda. Good grief.
Click to expand...

The book I listed has zero talk about religion. It's probably the best book to get an introduction to the science behind ToE, especially if you have little to no background in biology. He is the world's most respected evolutionary biologist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#243
#243
Roustabout said:
Dawkins. There's a guy with no agenda. Good grief.
Click to expand...

Yah, notice we weren't asked to read, "The God Delusion." No agenda whatsoever.

"The Greatest Show on Earth" was a collection of bad philosophy, straw man arguments against the evil "Creationists", glossed over explanations as to why the fossil record doesn't show what Darwinism predicts, a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of just how damaging the Cambrian Explosion is to Darwinism, "must-have" inventions entered as evidence, and a nice stack of evidence for evolution (as in, change over time).

He listed several evidences while misrepresenting them and/or leaving out important information and/or making inference claims about them that borders on all-out lying.

If this book is the best list of Darwinian evidences on hand to prop up, then Darwinism is in even worse shape than I thought.

What I find intriguing about the book was its apparent intended audience. The apparent intended audience was apparently (1) completely ignorant people who would be unaware of the problems that he left out concerning his "evidence", (2) "the choir" who already believe evolution and will take it all in unfiltered, (3) Intelligent Design scientists.

I added this last group because he references them ad nausium in the book. Dawkins is little better than MercyPercy. He likes making wise cracks from the safety of his books, but absolutely, positively refuses to debate them in an open forum.

Dawkins is the preeminent question-beggar. Everything he sees proves Darwinian evolution because Darwinian evolution is true. The wide gaps between supposed evidence is filled with "must-have" arguments, dissenting opinions are mis-represented as straw men (or more widely, ignored), and troubling facts are discarded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#244
#244
VOLatile said:
The book I listed has zero talk about religion. It's probably the best book to get an introduction to the science behind ToE, especially if you have little to no background in biology. He is the world's most respected evolutionary biologist.
Click to expand...

Why would an all-powerful creator decide to plant his carefully crafted species on islands and continents in exactly the appropriate pattern to suggest, irresistibly, that they had evolved and dispersed from the site of their evolution?
Click to expand...

Inferring motives of a creator is not a religious question/statement? Odd.

Let me tell you something, Dawkins better hope the reader of this book has no understanding of the evidences and critiques of Darwinian Evolution.
 
#245
#245
Orange_Crush said:
Y

Everything he sees proves Darwinian evolution because Darwinian evolution is true. The wide gaps between supposed evidence is filled with "must-have" arguments, dissenting opinions are mis-represented as straw men (or more widely, ignored), and troubling facts are discarded.
Click to expand...

Well, you have no problems coming to grips with the bible being true because it says it true. All this arguing here about details and yet you've seem to dismiss the leap from Genesis to Mathew.

He's an evolutionary biologist man, you pointing at the cracks in evolutionary evidence and saying "look, look" while having blind faith in a personal god with ZERO evidence is hysterical.

Dawkins would be the first to tell you he's wrong as soon as you find a rabbit, bird or any fossil out of the evolutionary sequence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#246
#246
Septic said:
Well, you have no problems coming to grips with the bible being true because it says it true. All this arguing here about details and yet you've seem to dismiss the leap from Genesis to Mathew.
Click to expand...

I've ignored nothing. I teach that leap every week. Pardon me for not expounding on your behalf.

Septic said:
He's an evolutionary biologist man, you pointing at the cracks in evolutionary evidence and saying "look, look" while having blind faith in a personal god with ZERO evidence is hysterical.
Click to expand...

I would take issue with the ZERO evidence/BLIND faith part. I've gnawed that bone in two or three threads and won't rehash, mainly because...

I am theologian, NOT an evolutionary biologist claiming absolute, incontrovertible scientific truth, and comparing those who disagree to holocaust deniers.

It's sad that this book was recommended to us as the best that Darwinian evolution has to prove its truth, and your response is to compare it to religion. It's very fitting.

But also very sad.

Septic said:
Dawkins would be the first to tell you he's wrong as soon as you find a rabbit, bird or any fossil out of the evolutionary sequence.
Click to expand...

I think he would be lying if he said that, but who am I to say...? What did Dawkins say in Greatest Show...?

Careful inference can be more reliable than ‘actual observation’, however strongly our intuition protests at admitting it.
Click to expand...

This book will take inference seriously – not mere inference but proper scientific inference – and I shall show the irrefragable power of the inference that evolution is a fact.
Click to expand...

The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eye-witness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.
Click to expand...

He seems far less interested in "actual observation". What would happen if he "actually observed" evidence that disproved Darwinian evolution? Well, obviously his "inferences" would kick in to inform him and allay any "reasonable doubt".

Why? Because...

His inferences are better than even eye witness reports. If evidence denying Darwinian evolution was actually observe, his "inferences" are stronger and thus the eyewitness observation would be insufficient to support "reasonable doubt" of Darwinian evolution.

I will at least give him credit. He started the book by telling us point blank that most of his evidences were inferences (or required truckloads of it). I just take issue with the spurious claim that his inferences are evidence for Darwinian evolution. They are question-begging creations that interprets evidence through the filter of his "God Delusion" philosophical magnum opus.
 
#247
#247
Septic said:
Well, you have no problems coming to grips with the bible being true because it says it true. All this arguing here about details and yet you've seem to dismiss the leap from Genesis to Mathew.
Click to expand...
That is a circular argument, and not one I've heard Crush espouse. You'd fare better to deal with what we are actually arguing than to elephant hurl and attack strawmen.


He's an evolutionary biologist man, you pointing at the cracks in evolutionary evidence and saying "look, look" while having blind faith in a personal god with ZERO evidence is hysterical.
Click to expand...
Really, that's your argument? I think blind faith is stupid. I would never ask anyone to trust the Bible or become a Christian through blind faith. Nor does the Bible itself argue this. Again, strawman. You are putting your faith in the writings of fallible men such as Dawkins.

Dawkins would be the first to tell you he's wrong as soon as you find a rabbit, bird or any fossil out of the evolutionary sequence.
Click to expand...
I have watched quite a few debates with Dawkins, and he's a clever guy, but I've never seen him once set asside his agenda and rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#248
#248
Roustabout said:
That is a circular argument, and not one I've heard Crush espouse. You'd fair better to actually deal with what we are actually arguing than to elephant hurl and attack strawmen.
Click to expand...

I have never espoused the circular argument he accuses of, most especially as a logical argument. What he doesn't know is that my greatest joy is teaching the continuity of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, with ample cross-references and with attention to the culture that each book was written in/to.

:hi:
 
#249
#249
Orange_Crush said:
I have never espoused the circular argument he accuses of, most especially as a logical argument. What he doesn't know is that my greatest joy is teaching the continuity of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, with ample cross-references and with attention to the culture that each book was written in/to.

:hi:
Click to expand...
Crush, are you in the Knoxville area?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top