jmcc
CAGiversary!
Disturbing stuff... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
America: Jesus built my hotrod (and our DNA)
- Thread starter jmcc
- Start date
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
It's not nice to pick on the creationist - most of them haven't evolved very much.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
It's not saying much about Creationism - more about what religion you belong too. I bet these statistics prevail throughout the world, it's a non-story.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I don't think it's a non-story that 55% of Americans believe that God created man in his present form totally discounting evolution. I think it's sad.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='MrBadExample']I don't think it's a non-story that 55% of Americans believe that God created man in his present form totally discounting evolution. I think it's sad.[/quote]
But Creationism should be taught... in American History as an explanation of the Scopes Monkey Trial
But Creationism should be taught... in American History as an explanation of the Scopes Monkey Trial
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
It's things like this that make me pround to be an American 
gamefreak
CAGiversary!
The majority of America are bible-thumping Christians because a) Bush got elected and b) radical areas teach creationism.
Therefore, all liberals are violent communists/anarachist because groups of radicals violently protest.
COME THE FRICK ON. Most people I know that voted for Bush aren't devoluty christian, or christian at all. Can you please stop making excuses for why Bush won? Sure people voted for him because of his religion. Sure people voted for him because they bought his rhetoric (which isn't that great; hey, it could happen). Most people voted for him because they felt overall better having him as our president (than Kerry). Sure they might not have made the best choice in your opinions but theres no need to generalize people as idiots with an IQ of 40 and a devout christian faith. Do we generalize you all as flip-flopping idiots? I would say no; we don't at least from my perspective.
Or just keep on doing whatever you want; excuses are alot easier to bear.
Therefore, all liberals are violent communists/anarachist because groups of radicals violently protest.
COME THE FRICK ON. Most people I know that voted for Bush aren't devoluty christian, or christian at all. Can you please stop making excuses for why Bush won? Sure people voted for him because of his religion. Sure people voted for him because they bought his rhetoric (which isn't that great; hey, it could happen). Most people voted for him because they felt overall better having him as our president (than Kerry). Sure they might not have made the best choice in your opinions but theres no need to generalize people as idiots with an IQ of 40 and a devout christian faith. Do we generalize you all as flip-flopping idiots? I would say no; we don't at least from my perspective.
Or just keep on doing whatever you want; excuses are alot easier to bear.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Shut the 
up, asswipe. This isn't about the elections, this is about a disturbingly high percentage of Americans being radical and dangerous people filled with hatred.
up, asswipe. This isn't about the elections, this is about a disturbingly high percentage of Americans being radical and dangerous people filled with hatred.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='Quackzilla']Shut the shaq-fu up, asswipe. This isn't about the elections, this is about a disturbingly high percentage of Americans being radical and dangerous people filled with hatred.[/quote]
Let's just allow that statement to sink in for a minute ...
Ok, good.
:lol:
Let's just allow that statement to sink in for a minute ...
Ok, good.
:lol:
ZeroSupporT
CAGiversary!
It's heresy I tell you....heresy!
SwiftyLeZar
CAGiversary!
On the subject, people who think creationism and evolution should be taught together are stupid.
Evolution is a default theory [fact] that is not based on any childish fantasy -- excuse me, religion.
"Creationism" is something of a misnomer simply because it's so vague. Creationism caters specifically to the Christian agenda and the Christian beliefs. I defy you to find one creationist who will tell you that Allah or Anything Other Than the Christian God created the universe.
If we want creationism taught, then we should also have to teach theories based on every other religion; Hinduism, Buddhism, etc etc.
So kids better be ready to beef up their science cirriculum - it's gonna take a good 8 semesters of science to teach all the fluff theories that are only there to please the fundamentalists, not counting the extra one to teach evolution.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to The Dark Ages.
Evolution is a default theory [fact] that is not based on any childish fantasy -- excuse me, religion.
"Creationism" is something of a misnomer simply because it's so vague. Creationism caters specifically to the Christian agenda and the Christian beliefs. I defy you to find one creationist who will tell you that Allah or Anything Other Than the Christian God created the universe.
If we want creationism taught, then we should also have to teach theories based on every other religion; Hinduism, Buddhism, etc etc.
So kids better be ready to beef up their science cirriculum - it's gonna take a good 8 semesters of science to teach all the fluff theories that are only there to please the fundamentalists, not counting the extra one to teach evolution.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to The Dark Ages.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
I never quite understand why some people get so irate when people start questioning evolution...
Religion gets questioned just as frequently, yet the ire it is met by never seems to reach the same level (perhaps it the composition of the site... if it were a fundemental christan site and the topic was broached, perhaps the reactions would be vastly different).
Evolution is just a theory after all. It is not beyond questioning. It is not beyond reproach.
Perhaps I was just odd when growing up, but that was one of the first things I grasped and clung too..
Not everything taught in science is law. It seems some people can't seperate the difference, or are just lazy when it comes to seperating Scientific law from theory.
You know, for all of the whining and crabbing that this topic has spawned (across the myriad of variant threads), I'm shocked people haven't been pulling out the logical proofs that prove and disprove the existance of God.
Religion gets questioned just as frequently, yet the ire it is met by never seems to reach the same level (perhaps it the composition of the site... if it were a fundemental christan site and the topic was broached, perhaps the reactions would be vastly different).
Evolution is just a theory after all. It is not beyond questioning. It is not beyond reproach.
Perhaps I was just odd when growing up, but that was one of the first things I grasped and clung too..
Not everything taught in science is law. It seems some people can't seperate the difference, or are just lazy when it comes to seperating Scientific law from theory.
You know, for all of the whining and crabbing that this topic has spawned (across the myriad of variant threads), I'm shocked people haven't been pulling out the logical proofs that prove and disprove the existance of God.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='JSweeney']I never quite understand why some people get so irate when people start questioning evolution...
Religion gets questioned just as frequently, yet the ire it is met by never seems to reach the same level (perhaps it the composition of the site... if it were a fundemental christan site and the topic was broached, perhaps the reactions would be vastly different).
Evolution is just a theory after all. It is not beyond questioning. It is not beyond reproach.
Perhaps I was just odd when growing up, but that was one of the first things I grasped and clung too..
Not everything taught in science is law. It seems some people can't seperate the difference, or are just lazy when it comes to seperating Scientific law from theory.
You know, for all of the whining and crabbing that this topic has spawned (across the myriad of variant threads), I'm shocked people haven't been pulling out the logical proofs that prove and disprove the existance of God.[/quote]
How life started? Up for debate. Evolution? Fact.
Religion gets questioned just as frequently, yet the ire it is met by never seems to reach the same level (perhaps it the composition of the site... if it were a fundemental christan site and the topic was broached, perhaps the reactions would be vastly different).
Evolution is just a theory after all. It is not beyond questioning. It is not beyond reproach.
Perhaps I was just odd when growing up, but that was one of the first things I grasped and clung too..
Not everything taught in science is law. It seems some people can't seperate the difference, or are just lazy when it comes to seperating Scientific law from theory.
You know, for all of the whining and crabbing that this topic has spawned (across the myriad of variant threads), I'm shocked people haven't been pulling out the logical proofs that prove and disprove the existance of God.[/quote]
How life started? Up for debate. Evolution? Fact.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='JSweeney']I never quite understand why some people get so irate when people start questioning evolution...
Religion gets questioned just as frequently, yet the ire it is met by never seems to reach the same level (perhaps it the composition of the site... if it were a fundemental christan site and the topic was broached, perhaps the reactions would be vastly different).
Evolution is just a theory after all. It is not beyond questioning. It is not beyond reproach.
Perhaps I was just odd when growing up, but that was one of the first things I grasped and clung too..
Not everything taught in science is law. It seems some people can't seperate the difference, or are just lazy when it comes to seperating Scientific law from theory.
You know, for all of the whining and crabbing that this topic has spawned (across the myriad of variant threads), I'm shocked people haven't been pulling out the logical proofs that prove and disprove the existance of God.[/quote]
How life started? Up for debate. Evolution? Fact.[/quote]
Fact = law.
Evolution is a theory, therefore it is not fact.
Theory= speculation.
That does not mean that it isn't well founded, or that it doesn't have evidence to back it up... there are very many well founded theories that are treated "as if they were" laws.
But, it is still not fact.
That's a big problem about agumentation on the internet (and IRL)... people have a hard time with the concepts of facts and law, and often use the the terms incorrectly.
So long as the discourse is conducted reasonably and following the set standards expected for scientific experimentation, the questioning of a theory is always a good thing... without questioning, knowledge stagnates and does not grow... which is a terrible thing.
Religion gets questioned just as frequently, yet the ire it is met by never seems to reach the same level (perhaps it the composition of the site... if it were a fundemental christan site and the topic was broached, perhaps the reactions would be vastly different).
Evolution is just a theory after all. It is not beyond questioning. It is not beyond reproach.
Perhaps I was just odd when growing up, but that was one of the first things I grasped and clung too..
Not everything taught in science is law. It seems some people can't seperate the difference, or are just lazy when it comes to seperating Scientific law from theory.
You know, for all of the whining and crabbing that this topic has spawned (across the myriad of variant threads), I'm shocked people haven't been pulling out the logical proofs that prove and disprove the existance of God.[/quote]
How life started? Up for debate. Evolution? Fact.[/quote]
Fact = law.
Evolution is a theory, therefore it is not fact.
Theory= speculation.
That does not mean that it isn't well founded, or that it doesn't have evidence to back it up... there are very many well founded theories that are treated "as if they were" laws.
But, it is still not fact.
That's a big problem about agumentation on the internet (and IRL)... people have a hard time with the concepts of facts and law, and often use the the terms incorrectly.
So long as the discourse is conducted reasonably and following the set standards expected for scientific experimentation, the questioning of a theory is always a good thing... without questioning, knowledge stagnates and does not grow... which is a terrible thing.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='jmcc']I never see why scientists bother debating religistas and vice versa. Science asks how, religion asks why, they're not on the same page.[/quote]
I completely agree. There will always be contention between the two because neither side will ever admit that thier explantion does not deny the validity of the other.
Unfortunately, when people speak on the issue, it tends to be people on the extreme ends...
I completely agree. There will always be contention between the two because neither side will ever admit that thier explantion does not deny the validity of the other.
Unfortunately, when people speak on the issue, it tends to be people on the extreme ends...
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='JSweeney']I never quite understand why some people get so irate when people start questioning evolution...
Religion gets questioned just as frequently, yet the ire it is met by never seems to reach the same level (perhaps it the composition of the site... if it were a fundemental christan site and the topic was broached, perhaps the reactions would be vastly different).
Evolution is just a theory after all. It is not beyond questioning. It is not beyond reproach.
Perhaps I was just odd when growing up, but that was one of the first things I grasped and clung too..
Not everything taught in science is law. It seems some people can't seperate the difference, or are just lazy when it comes to seperating Scientific law from theory.
You know, for all of the whining and crabbing that this topic has spawned (across the myriad of variant threads), I'm shocked people haven't been pulling out the logical proofs that prove and disprove the existance of God.[/quote]
How life started? Up for debate. Evolution? Fact.[/quote]
Fact = law.
Evolution is a theory, therefore it is not fact.
Theory= speculation.
[/quote]
Scientific Fact
Function: noun
Definition: Any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.
Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.5)
Copyright © 2003, 2004 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
I think this qualifies.
Religion gets questioned just as frequently, yet the ire it is met by never seems to reach the same level (perhaps it the composition of the site... if it were a fundemental christan site and the topic was broached, perhaps the reactions would be vastly different).
Evolution is just a theory after all. It is not beyond questioning. It is not beyond reproach.
Perhaps I was just odd when growing up, but that was one of the first things I grasped and clung too..
Not everything taught in science is law. It seems some people can't seperate the difference, or are just lazy when it comes to seperating Scientific law from theory.
You know, for all of the whining and crabbing that this topic has spawned (across the myriad of variant threads), I'm shocked people haven't been pulling out the logical proofs that prove and disprove the existance of God.[/quote]
How life started? Up for debate. Evolution? Fact.[/quote]
Fact = law.
Evolution is a theory, therefore it is not fact.
Theory= speculation.
[/quote]
Scientific Fact
Function: noun
Definition: Any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.
Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.5)
Copyright © 2003, 2004 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
I think this qualifies.
spyhunterk19
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
"Fighting about religion is just stupid. Why would you fight over who has the better imaginary friend"
SwiftyLeZar
CAGiversary!
[quote name='JSweeney']
Fact = law.
Evolution is a theory, therefore it is not fact.
Theory= speculation.
That does not mean that it isn't well founded, or that it doesn't have evidence to back it up... there are very many well founded theories that are treated "as if they were" laws.
But, it is still not fact.
[/quote]
Not true. Evolution is a fact, and a fact does not necessarily, in scientific terms, equate to being a law.
Let's go to the National Academy of Sciences for the practical scientific definition of fact:
"In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.' Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
That evolution occurred is a fact; how exactly it occurred still remains in a speculative stage.
I borrow once more from NAS:
"... scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong."
I quote now from Stephen J. Gould's "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:"
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
Fact = law.
Evolution is a theory, therefore it is not fact.
Theory= speculation.
That does not mean that it isn't well founded, or that it doesn't have evidence to back it up... there are very many well founded theories that are treated "as if they were" laws.
But, it is still not fact.
[/quote]
Not true. Evolution is a fact, and a fact does not necessarily, in scientific terms, equate to being a law.
Let's go to the National Academy of Sciences for the practical scientific definition of fact:
"In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.' Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
That evolution occurred is a fact; how exactly it occurred still remains in a speculative stage.
I borrow once more from NAS:
"... scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong."
I quote now from Stephen J. Gould's "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:"
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='JSweeney']I never quite understand why some people get so irate when people start questioning evolution...
Religion gets questioned just as frequently, yet the ire it is met by never seems to reach the same level (perhaps it the composition of the site... if it were a fundemental christan site and the topic was broached, perhaps the reactions would be vastly different).
Evolution is just a theory after all. It is not beyond questioning. It is not beyond reproach.
Perhaps I was just odd when growing up, but that was one of the first things I grasped and clung too..
Not everything taught in science is law. It seems some people can't seperate the difference, or are just lazy when it comes to seperating Scientific law from theory.
You know, for all of the whining and crabbing that this topic has spawned (across the myriad of variant threads), I'm shocked people haven't been pulling out the logical proofs that prove and disprove the existance of God.[/quote]
How life started? Up for debate. Evolution? Fact.[/quote]
Fact = law.
Evolution is a theory, therefore it is not fact.
Theory= speculation.
[/quote]
Scientific Fact
Function: noun
Definition: Any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.
Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.5)
Copyright © 2003, 2004 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
I think this qualifies.[/quote]
That isn't what you said, sblymnl.
You said fact, not scientific fact.
There is a subtle, yet important difference between the two concerning the absoluteness of the findings.
Religion gets questioned just as frequently, yet the ire it is met by never seems to reach the same level (perhaps it the composition of the site... if it were a fundemental christan site and the topic was broached, perhaps the reactions would be vastly different).
Evolution is just a theory after all. It is not beyond questioning. It is not beyond reproach.
Perhaps I was just odd when growing up, but that was one of the first things I grasped and clung too..
Not everything taught in science is law. It seems some people can't seperate the difference, or are just lazy when it comes to seperating Scientific law from theory.
You know, for all of the whining and crabbing that this topic has spawned (across the myriad of variant threads), I'm shocked people haven't been pulling out the logical proofs that prove and disprove the existance of God.[/quote]
How life started? Up for debate. Evolution? Fact.[/quote]
Fact = law.
Evolution is a theory, therefore it is not fact.
Theory= speculation.
[/quote]
Scientific Fact
Function: noun
Definition: Any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.
Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.5)
Copyright © 2003, 2004 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
I think this qualifies.[/quote]
That isn't what you said, sblymnl.
You said fact, not scientific fact.
There is a subtle, yet important difference between the two concerning the absoluteness of the findings.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
Not true. Evolution is a fact, and a fact does not necessarily, in scientific terms, equate to being a law.
Then you shouldn't be arguing sceince in non-scientific terms.
Let's go to the National Academy of Sciences for the practical scientific definition of fact:
"In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.' Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
So, when did sblymnl mention scientific fact? Not until after I posted.
Fact and scientific fact have difference, as I mentioned before.
That evolution occurred is a fact; how exactly it occurred still remains in a speculative stage.
I borrow once more from NAS:
"... scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong."
That proves it to be Scientific fact. When they prove it absolutely true, I'll accept it as a pure "fact"
I quote now from Stephen J. Gould's "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:"
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
He had me up until his ridiculous example that would have to violate scientific law and not theory to work. It's like so many posts here, polite and convicing up to a point, but trying to throw out that last barb at the end.
And yes, I believe the theory of evolution to be scientific fact.
But, I do not believe it to be absolutely true. It's a great theory.
But it is still just a theory. Nothing any of us has said has changed that, becuase for the last page and a half we've been arguing terminology and not validity.
Then you shouldn't be arguing sceince in non-scientific terms.
Let's go to the National Academy of Sciences for the practical scientific definition of fact:
"In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.' Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
So, when did sblymnl mention scientific fact? Not until after I posted.
Fact and scientific fact have difference, as I mentioned before.
That evolution occurred is a fact; how exactly it occurred still remains in a speculative stage.
I borrow once more from NAS:
"... scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong."
That proves it to be Scientific fact. When they prove it absolutely true, I'll accept it as a pure "fact"
I quote now from Stephen J. Gould's "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:"
"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
He had me up until his ridiculous example that would have to violate scientific law and not theory to work. It's like so many posts here, polite and convicing up to a point, but trying to throw out that last barb at the end.
And yes, I believe the theory of evolution to be scientific fact.
But, I do not believe it to be absolutely true. It's a great theory.
But it is still just a theory. Nothing any of us has said has changed that, becuase for the last page and a half we've been arguing terminology and not validity.
SwiftyLeZar
CAGiversary!
"So, when did sblymnl mention scientific fact? Not until after I posted.
Fact and scientific fact have difference, as I mentioned before."
Your definition of fact is wholly impractical. Nothing can be proven "absolutely true." That animals exist - let alone that they evolved - can't be proven absolutely true.
So by your definition, every single shred of human knowledge, whether it be considered law, fact, or unerring truth, is theory. In fact [edit: excuse me, In theory], your definition is completely useless in reality because nothing is a "fact."
By a much more pratical definition of "fact," like those stated earlier in the thread, evolution is a fact.
Fact and scientific fact have difference, as I mentioned before."
Your definition of fact is wholly impractical. Nothing can be proven "absolutely true." That animals exist - let alone that they evolved - can't be proven absolutely true.
So by your definition, every single shred of human knowledge, whether it be considered law, fact, or unerring truth, is theory. In fact [edit: excuse me, In theory], your definition is completely useless in reality because nothing is a "fact."
By a much more pratical definition of "fact," like those stated earlier in the thread, evolution is a fact.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='JSweeney']That isn't what you said, sblymnl.
You said fact, not scientific fact.
There is a subtle, yet important difference between the two concerning the absoluteness of the findings.[/quote]
You caught me there
You said fact, not scientific fact.
There is a subtle, yet important difference between the two concerning the absoluteness of the findings.[/quote]
You caught me there
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']"So, when did sblymnl mention scientific fact? Not until after I posted.
Fact and scientific fact have difference, as I mentioned before."
Your definition of fact is wholly impractical. Nothing can be proven "absolutely true." That animals exist - let alone that they evolved - can't be proven absolutely true.
So by your definition, every single shred of human knowledge, whether it be considered law, fact, or unerring truth, is theory. In fact [edit: excuse me, In theory], your definition is completely useless in reality because nothing is a "fact."
By a much more pratical definition of "fact," like those stated earlier in the thread, evolution is a fact.[/quote]
Notice I said "pure" fact. There are gradations of absoluteness.
Something that is an absolute or "pure" fact is obviously at one extreme.
Less absolute than absolute fact is fact.
Less absolute than fact is scientific fact.
Evolution is scientific fact. That is not in dispute.
I question whether it can meet the requirements that would be necessary for it to be a more general fact.
One of your quotes even suggest that this would be difficult, and not an aim of evolutionists:
The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth.
They are satisfied to view it as scientific fact. I'm happy to agree with them.
Fact and scientific fact have difference, as I mentioned before."
Your definition of fact is wholly impractical. Nothing can be proven "absolutely true." That animals exist - let alone that they evolved - can't be proven absolutely true.
So by your definition, every single shred of human knowledge, whether it be considered law, fact, or unerring truth, is theory. In fact [edit: excuse me, In theory], your definition is completely useless in reality because nothing is a "fact."
By a much more pratical definition of "fact," like those stated earlier in the thread, evolution is a fact.[/quote]
Notice I said "pure" fact. There are gradations of absoluteness.
Something that is an absolute or "pure" fact is obviously at one extreme.
Less absolute than absolute fact is fact.
Less absolute than fact is scientific fact.
Evolution is scientific fact. That is not in dispute.
I question whether it can meet the requirements that would be necessary for it to be a more general fact.
One of your quotes even suggest that this would be difficult, and not an aim of evolutionists:
The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth.
They are satisfied to view it as scientific fact. I'm happy to agree with them.
SwiftyLeZar
CAGiversary!
Alright then... What were we debating again?
David85
Banned
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='David85']New poll...
Do you think America is doomed forever because of dumbs like these?
100% Yes
0% No
This poll was talking by 1 thinking person, myself.[/quote]
I'm not sure how anyone could make your post sound any more bigoted and ignorant.[/quote]
Oh yes, I'm the ignorant one.
IU think people who are in favor of this are more ignorant, close minded and bigoted, that's about 60 million Americans so it shouldn't be that hard, hell if you look in the miror you would see one.
Do you think America is doomed forever because of dumb
s like these?100% Yes
0% No
This poll was talking by 1 thinking person, myself.[/quote]
I'm not sure how anyone could make your post sound any more bigoted and ignorant.[/quote]
Oh yes, I'm the ignorant one.
IU think people who are in favor of this are more ignorant, close minded and bigoted, that's about 60 million Americans so it shouldn't be that hard, hell if you look in the miror you would see one.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='David85'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='David85']New poll...
Do you think America is doomed forever because of dumbs like these?
100% Yes
0% No
This poll was talking by 1 thinking person, myself.[/quote]
I'm not sure how anyone could make your post sound any more bigoted and ignorant.[/quote]
Oh yes, I'm the ignorant one.
IU think people who are in favor of this are more ignorant, close minded and bigoted, that's about 60 million Americans so it shouldn't be that hard, hell if you look in the miror you would see one.[/quote]
You keep talking, yet you never do any damage control.
Any time you talk about "them" and what "they" are doing, without recognizing your own bias, you might as well just add "bigot" to your title.
Plenty of others to discuss this in this thread without having the appearence of bigotry. Of course, you couldn't manage that.
Your ignorance shines through in your posts... it is one of the great follies of the ignorant man to proclaim himself wise. A thinking person would not be so quick to dismiss the beliefs of others. While they may see them as misguided, they would also take the opportunity to look deeper into the issue and see why they believe it.
Yes, David85, I am ignorant.
I do lack knowledge. I am not omniscient. My ignorance is what drives me to study, to learn, and even to argue and debate. But to state that I am more ignorant that you is falacy, for I am willing to learn, to study and consider alternatives. You're closed minded, seeming as much or even moreso than the "dumbs" you seem to prattle on so endlessly about in the myriads of posts you've made in vs mode.
I think America is truly doomed because of people like you that can't step away from thier short-sighted world views and percieve thier own ignorance and bigotry.
Do you think America is doomed forever because of dumb
s like these?100% Yes
0% No
This poll was talking by 1 thinking person, myself.[/quote]
I'm not sure how anyone could make your post sound any more bigoted and ignorant.[/quote]
Oh yes, I'm the ignorant one.
IU think people who are in favor of this are more ignorant, close minded and bigoted, that's about 60 million Americans so it shouldn't be that hard, hell if you look in the miror you would see one.[/quote]
You keep talking, yet you never do any damage control.
Any time you talk about "them" and what "they" are doing, without recognizing your own bias, you might as well just add "bigot" to your title.
Plenty of others to discuss this in this thread without having the appearence of bigotry. Of course, you couldn't manage that.
Your ignorance shines through in your posts... it is one of the great follies of the ignorant man to proclaim himself wise. A thinking person would not be so quick to dismiss the beliefs of others. While they may see them as misguided, they would also take the opportunity to look deeper into the issue and see why they believe it.
Yes, David85, I am ignorant.
I do lack knowledge. I am not omniscient. My ignorance is what drives me to study, to learn, and even to argue and debate. But to state that I am more ignorant that you is falacy, for I am willing to learn, to study and consider alternatives. You're closed minded, seeming as much or even moreso than the "dumb
s" you seem to prattle on so endlessly about in the myriads of posts you've made in vs mode.I think America is truly doomed because of people like you that can't step away from thier short-sighted world views and percieve thier own ignorance and bigotry.
David85
Banned
Right.... I'm ignorant....
Why don't we teach the world is flat in school? Or that Earth is the center of the universe?
Trying to say that evulution never happened when there is tons of proof that it did, trying to claim that all science is a fraid when it's based on something besides a dumbass book that God didn't write, that's ignorance, and it's dumb.
The fact people like you can not see that is why this country is doomed. God still could have created everything, but we did evolve, yet the Christains try to hide the facts and science so they can put in their own trash that isn't based on anything.
Why don't we teach the world is flat in school? Or that Earth is the center of the universe?
Trying to say that evulution never happened when there is tons of proof that it did, trying to claim that all science is a fraid when it's based on something besides a dumbass book that God didn't write, that's ignorance, and it's dumb.
The fact people like you can not see that is why this country is doomed. God still could have created everything, but we did evolve, yet the Christains try to hide the facts and science so they can put in their own trash that isn't based on anything.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
Right.... I'm ignorant....
Yes, you are.
Why don't we teach the world is flat in school? Or that Earth is the center of the universe?
Because there is incontravertable fact showing that the earth is round, and not the center of the universe.
When archeologists produce the missing link, then evolution will be on the same footing.
Trying to say that evulution never happened when there is tons of proof that it did, trying to claim that all science is a fraid when it's based on something besides a dumbass book that God didn't write, that's ignorance, and it's dumb.
You just can't see beyond what you think, can you?
You don't wonder why people think that way..
it's just easier for you to call look down upon them and chastise thier beliefs.
The fact people like you can not see that is why this country is doomed. God still could have created everything, but we did evolve, yet the Christains try to hide the facts and science so they can put in their own trash that isn't based on anything.
Never mind that the Catholic Church has accepted evolution, except in matters where it concerns the human soul, right?
(Pope John Paul II stated this in a speech in 1996)
That would ruin the blanket statement you're tossing down against Christians, wouldn't it? (Considering that the Catholic Church makes up a good percentage of all American Christians.)
Of course, if you really wanted to rally against ignorance, you'd be arguing against the 37% of people that want creationism taught instead of evolution. These are the people who are scary.
Hiding knowledge is good for noone. Being ignorant is not all that bad. What harm does it do to you for them to believe something?
If someone believes the world is flat, what harm does that do you?
The only harm here would be for a sound scientific theory to be overlooked due to political pressure. (It's not even theological pressure, save for maybe from some Prodestant churches). That would be a shame..
but you don't even seem to care about that. You'd rather sit and pass judgement of these people, as some intellectual elitist, pissing on those who you think know less than you.
Yes, you are.
Why don't we teach the world is flat in school? Or that Earth is the center of the universe?
Because there is incontravertable fact showing that the earth is round, and not the center of the universe.
When archeologists produce the missing link, then evolution will be on the same footing.
Trying to say that evulution never happened when there is tons of proof that it did, trying to claim that all science is a fraid when it's based on something besides a dumbass book that God didn't write, that's ignorance, and it's dumb.
You just can't see beyond what you think, can you?
You don't wonder why people think that way..
it's just easier for you to call look down upon them and chastise thier beliefs.
The fact people like you can not see that is why this country is doomed. God still could have created everything, but we did evolve, yet the Christains try to hide the facts and science so they can put in their own trash that isn't based on anything.
Never mind that the Catholic Church has accepted evolution, except in matters where it concerns the human soul, right?
(Pope John Paul II stated this in a speech in 1996)
That would ruin the blanket statement you're tossing down against Christians, wouldn't it? (Considering that the Catholic Church makes up a good percentage of all American Christians.)
Of course, if you really wanted to rally against ignorance, you'd be arguing against the 37% of people that want creationism taught instead of evolution. These are the people who are scary.
Hiding knowledge is good for noone. Being ignorant is not all that bad. What harm does it do to you for them to believe something?
If someone believes the world is flat, what harm does that do you?
The only harm here would be for a sound scientific theory to be overlooked due to political pressure. (It's not even theological pressure, save for maybe from some Prodestant churches). That would be a shame..
but you don't even seem to care about that. You'd rather sit and pass judgement of these people, as some intellectual elitist, pissing on those who you think know less than you.
[quote name='jmcc']I never see why scientists bother debating religistas and vice versa. Science asks how, religion asks why, they're not on the same page.[/quote]
oooohhhh...I like that. Is that a quote or something you just wrote because it is very quotable. I like it.
oooohhhh...I like that. Is that a quote or something you just wrote because it is very quotable. I like it.
jmcc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='defender'][quote name='jmcc']I never see why scientists bother debating religistas and vice versa. Science asks how, religion asks why, they're not on the same page.[/quote]
oooohhhh...I like that. Is that a quote or something you just wrote because it is very quotable. I like it.[/quote]
It's not someone else's quote, as far as I know, though many other people have pointed out the "why/how" difference before me.
oooohhhh...I like that. Is that a quote or something you just wrote because it is very quotable. I like it.[/quote]
It's not someone else's quote, as far as I know, though many other people have pointed out the "why/how" difference before me.
Inmate #10943
CAGiversary!
Plumberboy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='ABC NEWS Report: Antony Flew']"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins..."[/quote]
Cosmic Saddam Husseins
Cosmic Saddam Husseins
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Inmate #10943']Speaking of DNA -
Found this interesting : ABC NEWS: Famous Atheist Now Believes in God[/quote]
Notice that he's a Deist like most of the founding fathers (Jefferson is even mentioned). He even quotes a pagan (Socrates) to explain his philisophical switch. This should serve as a message to all Christians - Deism is very different from believing that Jesus Christ was a god that came down to give fish to people and show he could walk on water.
You might say that our most important legal documents written by the Founding Fathers contain some Deist (or Monotheistic) philosophy, but they do not contain Judeo-Christian theology.
Found this interesting : ABC NEWS: Famous Atheist Now Believes in God[/quote]
Notice that he's a Deist like most of the founding fathers (Jefferson is even mentioned). He even quotes a pagan (Socrates) to explain his philisophical switch. This should serve as a message to all Christians - Deism is very different from believing that Jesus Christ was a god that came down to give fish to people and show he could walk on water.
You might say that our most important legal documents written by the Founding Fathers contain some Deist (or Monotheistic) philosophy, but they do not contain Judeo-Christian theology.
David85
Banned
""I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."
So he think the Christain and Islamic Gods are evil and thinks that aliens are God?
So he think the Christain and Islamic Gods are evil and thinks that aliens are God?
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='JSweeney']Because there is incontravertable fact showing that the earth is round, and not the center of the universe. [/quote]
Actually, there isn't.
It is a calculation made by astronomers.
It is the same proof that supposts the big bang.
So if you believe that the earth is not the center of the universe, you should also believe in the big bang.
Actually, there isn't.
It is a calculation made by astronomers.
It is the same proof that supposts the big bang.
So if you believe that the earth is not the center of the universe, you should also believe in the big bang.
bread's done