Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#1,101
#1,101
SergeantVol said:
Is science not based on theories that examine the possible? There are infinite possibilities to many scientific theories that have not been proven but the scientific community believes it based on faith because the argument seems logical. All I am saying is that it is not outside of the realm of possibilities that a supreme deity or deities exist. There is much that we do not know whether it is based in science or religion. We have only begun to tap the infinite possibilities that exist in this world.
Click to expand...

Do I consider it a 100% impossibility, no. Do I find a deity likely, no. But even if your god existed, he is not a god I would consider worshipping.
 
#1,102
#1,102
http://www.discovery.org/a/2101

BartW said:
If the KKK had a link to "research" funded by a KKK thinktank performed by KKK members, I would dismiss it just as readily. The Discovery Institute's unscientific conservative christiain motives have been public since the Wedge Document was leaked in tuhe 90s. They've been trying to get religion back in the classroom through their "equal time" movement, which was redisguised as "creation science" and then "intelligent design" and now "teach the controversy" as each attempt has been ruled in court to be unscientific and in violation of the establishment clause.

But besides the organization being a big fraud, here are some reasons nobody takes the "research" seriously.

Sorry Roust I didn't mean to antagonize or contaminate, but you are not dealing with the science if you cite the Discovery Institute.
Click to expand...
Sorry Bart buy you only confirmed the point I was making.
I almost mentioned talk origins in my prior post. Talk about pot calling kettle.

So, does TO address the actual contwnt of study. Not really. They criticize papers because they don't actually mention design. Well, showing the problems with traditional Darwinism may not necessarily mention an alternative theory.
Also they criticize no new data. Are ID proponents suggesting new data? No. They are revealing that existing data can be interpreted differently. Its refuting reification that is epidemic. We could just as easily criticize Darwinist presuppositions. For example was Johanson funded NOT to find a missing link? I think funding would be a great subject. Discovery's funding is all private. Darwinist are spending the people's dime to enter research with the motive to support existing presuppositions. Do I really need to link someone like Dr. Bill Provine who claimed evolution as evidence against human life having intrinsic value and stating that evolution proves there is no foundation for ethics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,103
#1,103
Septic said:
I'd never heard of the Discovery Institute before today, after reading up on them, it's pretty obvious why. Da-fuq Roustabout, citing these guys is as bad as looking to Dr. Hovind for tax advice.

You're better than this...
Click to expand...
I can Google criticisms of talk origins.
Hovind is a nut. Terrible comparison, but why expect less from you. You can't think for yourself.

Its like you or Hawking implying that something can come from nothing. Do we really need to define nothing? (Gravity isn't nothing BTW)
And an uncaused cause (prime mover) addresses infinite regress thank you very much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,104
#1,104
I find it funny that a thread is started about one of the political parties belief in Evolution and it turns into an attempt by the pseudo-atheists on the site to convince others not to believe in God........oh wait, I got confused there for a second.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,105
#1,105
Vol8188 said:
Do I consider it a 100% impossibility, no. Do I find a deity likely, no. But even if your god existed, he is not a god I would consider worshipping.
Click to expand...

We get it. This is the 20 + times you've said this in this thread....over & over & over. Go worship the person you see in the mirror.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,106
#1,106
82_VOL_83 said:
I find it funny that a thread is started about one of the political parties belief in Evolution and it turns into an attempt by the pseudo-atheists on the site to convince others not to believe in God........oh wait, I got confused there for a second.
Click to expand...

Define pseudo-athe..... No don't, you're still confused.
 
#1,107
#1,107
Roustabout said:
I can Google criticisms of talk origins.
Hovind is a nut. Terrible comparison, but why expect less from you. You can't think for yourself.

Its like you or Hawking implying that something can come from nothing. Do we really need to define nothing? (Gravity isn't nothing BTW)
And an uncaused cause (prime mover) addresses infinite regress thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Lulz . Hovind, while certainly a nut, was simply used to illustrate bad comparisons. Your reply is six miles wide but only an inch deep.
 
#1,109
#1,109
Vol8188 said:
Do I consider it a 100% impossibility, no. Do I find a deity likely, no. But even if your god existed, he is not a god I would consider worshipping.
Click to expand...

Your inferences are leading you to believe that I worship the judeo-Christian god. For all you know I could be an Odinist or agnostic. Your bias is showing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,110
#1,110
82_VOL_83 said:
I find it funny that a thread is started about one of the political parties belief in Evolution and it turns into an attempt by the pseudo-atheists on the site to convince others not to believe in God........oh wait, I got confused there for a second.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone who doesnt believe in god should be trying to convince others not to as well. Examining and debating each others stances on the subject is fun though.
 
#1,111
#1,111
SergeantVol said:
Your inferences are leading you to believe that I worship the judeo-Christian god. For all you know I could be an Odinist or agnostic. Your bias is showing.
Click to expand...

Was he wrong? Out of the thousands of versions of God, where do you plant your flag? Or are you an atheist or a agnostic?
 
#1,112
#1,112
82_VOL_83 said:
I find it funny that a thread is started about one of the political parties belief in Evolution and it turns into an attempt by the pseudo-atheists on the site to convince others not to believe in God........oh wait, I got confused there for a second.
Click to expand...

it wasn't even about that, it was about a poll that suggested something to that effect. I proposed that the congregations of black churches be polled and their answers compared to their political activism. My guess is that even the most liberal, activist churches (like Trinity United) would view evolution with skepticism.

Instead, a poll like this gets used by the Mother Jones crowd to point out how the GOP is "anti-science".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,113
#1,113
Lol, citing the discovery institute, who's primary agenda is getting creationism(excuse me, "intelligent design") in public schools.

Flying spaghetti monster principle.
 
#1,115
#1,115
Septic said:
Was he wrong? Out of the thousands of versions of God, where do you plant your flag? Or are you an atheist or a agnostic?
Click to expand...

I was sleeping in this morning. I have my own views that blend science and religion (not Scientology). I chose not to go to church because I do not fit into any of the Christian based schisms. I do enjoy the sense of community that churches offer when judgement is not rendered. I also enjoy the morals taught from the bible, Talmud, and other religious writings.
 
#1,116
#1,116
SergeantVol said:
I was sleeping in this morning. I have my own views that blend science and religion (not Scientology). I chose not to go to church because I do not fit into any of the Christian based schisms. I do enjoy the sense of community that churches offer when judgement is not rendered. I also enjoy the morals taught from the bible, Talmud, and other religious writings.
Click to expand...

Problem with the last part is the damnation for leering at MILFs that haven't divorced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,123
#1,123
MercyPercy said:
Lol, citing the discovery institute, who's primary agenda is getting creationism(excuse me, "intelligent design") in public schools.

Flying spaghetti monster principle.
Click to expand...
Percy,
You are just regurgitating talking points from those who seek to poison the well. This only shows that you are being a religious puppet and not thinking for yourself. ID is not creationism. Creationism is teaching from the Bible or other religious text. ID is a process of examining scientific facts and evidence and offering mulitple competing hypothesis'.

Shoot, I'll just quote biologist and rabid atheist Richard Dawkins. "The world is divided into things that look as though somebody designed them (wings and wagon-wheels, hearts and televisions), and things that just happened through the unintended workings of physics (mountains and rivers, sand dunes, and solar systems)."

So, what we have are posters who have resorted to ad-hominem attack and think they are actually presenting an argument. Assertions are not arguments. It's certainly not 'sceintific.' Talk Origins, which I have visited for close to a decade, is a source of vitriol, with an agenda veiled in the priestly lab coats of science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,124
#1,124
Roustabout said:
Percy,
You are just regurgitating talking points from those who seek to poison the well. This only shows that you are being a religious puppet and not thinking for yourself. ID is not creationism. Creationism is teaching from the Bible or other religious text. ID is a process of examining scientific facts and evidence and offering mulitple competing hypothesis'.

Shoot, I'll just quote biologist and rabid atheist Richard Dawkins. "The world is divided into things that look as though somebody designed them (wings and wagon-wheels, hearts and televisions), and things that just happened through the unintended workings of physics (mountains and rivers, sand dunes, and solar systems)."

So, what we have are posters who have resorted to ad-hominem attack and think they are actually presenting an argument. Assertions are not arguments. It's certainly not 'sceintific.' Talk Origins, which I have visited for close to a decade, is a source of vitriol, with an agenda veiled in the priestly lab coats of science.
Click to expand...

:good!: Thanks to you & OC for bringing good intelligent educated discussions to this thread. I've learned a lot from you & OC. :) I just need to retain that learning & apply it to everyday living.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,125
#1,125
Roustabout said:
Percy,
You are just regurgitating talking points from those who seek to poison the well. This only shows that you are being a religious puppet and not thinking for yourself. ID is not creationism. Creationism is teaching from the Bible or other religious text. ID is a process of examining scientific facts and evidence and offering mulitple competing hypothesis'.

Shoot, I'll just quote biologist and rabid atheist Richard Dawkins. "The world is divided into things that look as though somebody designed them (wings and wagon-wheels, hearts and televisions), and things that just happened through the unintended workings of physics (mountains and rivers, sand dunes, and solar systems)."

So, what we have are posters who have resorted to ad-hominem attack and think they are actually presenting an argument. Assertions are not arguments. It's certainly not 'sceintific.' Talk Origins, which I have visited for close to a decade, is a source of vitriol, with an agenda veiled in the priestly lab coats of science.
Click to expand...

Is ID falsifiable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top