Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I don't believe man and dinosaur coexisted they way some people believe...the idea of men and raptors playing together is abhorrent. (I'm referring to that creationism museum in America that has opened up)
Do you believe that man and dinosuar did exist together though, in the same span of time?
Originally posted by CreshoskPikachu evolved to Raichu! 😊
Because evolution is his mutant power? 😖hifty:Darwin is regarded as the father, is he not?
Darwin is oft regarded as the father, but he published The Origin of Species in the mid 1800s, when we lacked so much of the information we currently have available. Ironically though most people who refuse to accept evolutionary processes, and think that by attacking Darwin's century old work, have far less knowledge of them than he was privy to then.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't see how it relates to anything though. I mean especially before Darwin everyone had to be Religious, really.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yea... but is it scientific if you believe "God must have done it" as the answer to everything?
Newton thought his Theory of Gravity proved God. Yes, THAT Newton.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, you should read what I said. Not "That quote is..." but "That are quotes" ..referring to the many quotes that believers often use to paint Einstein as Religios or in their way spiritual, which he certainly wasn't.
Einstein was incredibly spiritual...he just wasn't spiritual in the traditional Jewish way. This is obvious, despite the distortion, to read it his work.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Which isn't entirely inaccurate, is it?
its pretty innacurate imo.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Look, I will just do what I do with every other moron that is too stupid to understand what I say and makes up shit.Bullshit, you moron.
Yeah, I thought you couldn't respond. Too bad you don't have a sense of class.
Besides, I really don't like debating with morons anyway.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I thought we buried our hatchet....anyway, why all the anger?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
And as for my interpretation of the Collins/Dawkins debate, I said that Dawkins points were harder to answer from a theist perspective, but that Dawkins debating relied heavily on poor rationale (he attacked religion in general as much as the question of God), bashing, and generally acting like a jerk. So I was more in agreement with him by the end than Collins, but thought he handled himself rather poorly.
Dawkins brought up points that I use frequently, but he too frequently jumps to conclusions. I like that debate because it illustrates why I dislike him.
Dawkins is sitting down with a peer and can't even address his point. Granted, I don't think Collins' answers are much better either, but he stuck to topic and didn't over-reach. He confined his answers the the limity of human knowledge.
Dawkins clearly didn't. Even worse, he invokes science to force credibility into his argument, tarnisihing its name in the process. SCIENCE does not study the supernatural. Dawkins seems to think it does.
And lastly, as you already said, Dawkins is just an ass about his points, refusing to give any room for plurality on issues that are clearly not-factual. He just rants, picking off minor statements by Collins instead of actually addressing the big issues. Even worse, Dawkins totally doesn't understand the very public fight between religion and science he's in. He makes stupid statements in the process and is often ignorant imo about how is actions play out in that public debate.
Also, hes fairly ignorant of the whole religious side of the debate, which doesn't really give one a strong abiltiy to debate. I think that becomes obvious. Dawkins sticks to his one track, without realizing he's in a railyard.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Darwin was not a believer in Christianity.I have no idea why so much emphasis is constantly placed on Darwin, with regards to modern understanding of evolution anyway.
The reason is to show that Christian and Religious people are involved in science, not only are they involved they often leading minds. The two big scientific theories of our age, Evolution and the Big Bang were both formed by religious people. Point is science does not preclude the existence of a creator, it just places limits on when and what he did.
Furthermore, you sit here and argue say, evolution because it is "scientific fact", because scientists back that theory but not so long ago the vast majority of atheist scientists would have backed the Solid State Universe Theory. You would too, it takes scientists decades to change their minds.
Yes, science has given us great understanding of out physical world, and Dawkins certainly has a great grasp of that. What he misses is while most scientists are nonreligious, not all intelligent people are scientists. He has spent his life devoting his thoughts and work to science, but is science the ONLY worthwhile field? I think that TED demonstrates more than anything else I can think of that intelligent beings enter every field of study. We should not be critical of those individuals who choose to enter non-scientific fields as somehow inferior. Human development has created specialization and scientists fill their role. We listen for their voice in understanding our world, but does this mean they possess all knowledge (or ever will) about what we need to know? Just as it would be strange to go to a doctor for non-medical advice, we should be cautious about reaching to science for answers in every part of life. The only studies I have ever seen (while I am probably omitting many) that claim to seek understanding to everything are science and religion. Strange that people are unwilling to see how beautiful they are when they mix.As he mentioned he was "preaching to the choir" he should have realized the connotations of that statement, as I believe it was the best way to summarize his talk; Dawkins is a preacher of evolutionary theory speaking to a congregation of people likely to agree with him. He used statistics from Mensa to reinforce that intelligent people are non-theists. It is strange that he doesn't see the immediate logical misstep he took by remembering that Mensa is a group of individuals who choose to be members or not. Are intelligent religious people likely to join a group comprised of people who are going to mock their belief in a higher power, or simply choose not to join the gang?
He mentioned that the Pope (John Paul II) was a believer of Evolution, and yet he still believes that a belief in God equals any denial of scientific theory. Yes, religion creates skepticism of science and vice versa, but this is a necessary battle of thought. Religious theory is evolving (in the minds of the intelligent religious person) just as scientific theory is constantly. The dichotomy of science and religion only shows the failings of our minds to understand the wonder of the universe. An understanding in science or religion does not give you an automatic understanding of the other.
It would be nice if Dawkins would step from his "high horse" as he put it and remember he is one man from one field of study, and to disregard all religious thought and text from people throughout centuries who were equally as intelligent and devoted to continuous study is arrogant and short-sighted. His lack of understanding even in the differences and subtleties of religion show why people find him so abrasive. He would find much more acceptance from the general population if he quit lumping all religious people together as "the stupid people" and realized there are intelligent people outside of his circle of contact. Not all Christians are creationists (in fact, most aren't), only the most vocal in the United States. It is people like Dawkins or his opposites like the late Jerry Falwell that keep the majority silent.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The reason is to show that Christian and Religious people are involved in science, not only are they involved they often leading minds. The two big scientific theories of our age, Evolution and the Big Bang were both formed by religious people. Point is science does not preclude the existence of a creator, it just places limits on when and what he did.Furthermore, you sit here and argue say, evolution because it is "scientific fact", because scientists back that theory but not so long ago the vast majority of atheist scientists would have backed the Solid State Universe Theory. You would too, it takes scientists decades to change their minds.
✅
However, I would say that science has not limited what a Creator has done, but how the Creator did such a thing. In Christianity's specific case, this is a movement that is millennia old.
Besides, this is not an onslaught on Christianity. Scientists are all faiths each figures out on his own how to balance the two, most never really reach a conclusion.
besdies...who wrote that clip you posted?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavAnd? I really don't see your point; I never said they weren't, I'm not sure if anyone else did. Francis Collins mentioned earlier in this thread is a highly respectable scientist who also happens to believe in a god.
The reason is to show that Christian and Religious people are involved in science,
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavThere are some well renowned scientists who also adhered to particular religions. There are also some well renowned scientists who adhere to no particular religion, and may or may not be spiritual. Gregor Mendel was a monk. Steven Hawkins was not. Again and?
not only are they involved they often leading minds.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavDarwin was an agnostic, he did not adhere to any particular religion as far as I'm aware. Friedmann came to the same conclusions as Lemaître, 8 years prior, I have no idea what his religious inclinations were. A theory in such a sense is not formed by any singular individual; a scientist builds upon previous ideas, and his ideas are consequently built upon. Evolutionary biology didn't stop at Darwin; nor did astronomy end with Lemaître. Which all leads to... and?
The two big scientific theories of our age, Evolution and the Big Bang were both formed by religious people.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavScience cannot preclude the existence of god or gods. Just as it cannot preclude the nonexistence. The intention of science is to explain and describe the physical world.
Point is science does not preclude the existence of a creator, it just places limits on when and what he did.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavI generally just sit here and laugh my ass off at JIA. The vast majority of current evidence supports the evolutionary model - there is no evidence for creationism, nor intelligent design, nor can there be as neither are scientific in basis. I wouldn't take any particular position on a physics concept, as it's not my forte.
Furthermore, you sit here and argue say, evolution because it is "scientific fact", because scientists back that theory but not so long ago the vast majority of atheist scientists would have backed the Solid State Universe Theory. You would too, it takes scientists decades to change their minds.
Erratum: I retract the "all" in favor of Alliance's diction.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
All current evidence supports the evolutionary model - there is no evidence for creationism, nor intelligent design, nor can there be as neither are scientific in basis.
*the vast majority of current evidence.
There is no better model than Natural Selection.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Science cannot preclude the existence of gods or gods. Just as it cannot preclude the nonexistence. The intention of science is to explain and describe the physical world.
👆