Republican nominations - Page 477

On February 23 2012 14:08 Focuspants wrote:


The Creation Story of Christianity from the Bible is mythology. Period.

On February 23 2012 14:08 Focuspants wrote:


The Creation Story of Christianity from the Bible is mythology. Period.

On February 23 2012 14:24 Holophonist wrote:


If you're talking about humans creating something, that's intelligent design. Like I said, it's not specific to religion, and certainly not any 1 specific religion.

On February 23 2012 14:28 tso wrote:
lol

"i'm going to make a claim and not require myself to provide evidence for it"

damn how many pages of this is there.. i leave for an hour.. who "won" the debate? missed the second half

On February 23 2012 14:28 tso wrote:
lol

"i'm going to make a claim and not require myself to provide evidence for it"

damn how many pages of this is there.. i leave for an hour.. who "won" the debate? missed the second half

On February 23 2012 14:28 Whitewing wrote:


Uh........... nowadays the overwhelming amount of the smartest people alive agree with Focuspants, 80% of the elite acedemia on the planet do not believe in a god, let alone the creation store of the bible. In fact, we have literal proof that the creation story of the bible CANNOT be true. We know, for a fact, that the universe was not created in 7 days. We know, for a fact, that the Eden story with Adam and Eve is not true. There are mountains of evidence on this matter.

Ever hear of the big bang? Yeah, that's a theory in the same way gravity is.

Regardless, Santorum is a nutcase, which is basically what started this whole discussion.

On February 23 2012 14:35 Mobius_1 wrote:
This conversation is really pointless, because Holophonist is set in his ways and as he takes more and more fundamentalist and far-fetched positions, he will be less open to persuasion until he ends up typing some angry rant in all caps.

+ Show Spoiler +y.

On February 23 2012 14:01 Probulous wrote:


Well that premise as a scientific theory has been debunked. For something to considered a theory it has to have internal logic and have some evidence to prove that it exists. In fact in scientific circles for something to go from a hypothesis to a theory requires a very large amount of evidence. That is why evolution is still called a theory. It does not produce the same result every time and is not 100% predictable and so cannot be called a law. So if you are trying to compare the theory of evolution to ID, ID must have a decent level of evidence. It does not. As Eris said, there is a plausible theory for people being abducted by aliens that has more evidence ("eye-witness acounts") than ID. Should that be in a science class?

On February 23 2012 14:38 forgottendreams wrote:


It's not pointless at all, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations and beliefs of believers because I come from a family of atheists. You can either live in ignorance of each other or ask to see why and how they believe in some things. Thanks for the preachy and bland post though.

On February 23 2012 14:35 Mobius_1 wrote:
This conversation is really pointless, because Holophonist is set in his ways and as he takes more and more fundamentalist and far-fetched positions, he will be less open to persuasion until he ends up typing some angry rant in all caps.

And his opponents will do more or less the same.

Which is kind of a snapshot of the current American election process.

But hey, at least Michelle Bachmann is no longer in the running. Although these guys are just as demonstrably crazy if the news reports on the debates are anything to go by.


Are you referring to the Republican debate or the Evolution debate?

But I think the result is pretty clear in both cases, between crazy (well, 1 quietly unelectable) nominees and fervent internet defense of a religious idea that nobody in the rest of the world teaches, America lost.

On February 23 2012 14:27 Sogo Otika wrote:
I'm sick of everyone hopping on to the anti-religion bandwagon. It's like Christians aren't even allowed to express opinions anymore because of the liberal secular media and relativist thinking (which is crap given that morals are absolute. If you have no absolute morals, then I could go murder a baby and say that it was relatively OK based on my own perception of what is right and wrong).

On February 23 2012 14:50 Mobius_1 wrote:

I apologise if that sounded preachy and bland. I mostly just wanted to draw the comparison between this debate and the Republican Debate.

However I stand by my assertion of this debate's futility. I am also curious why religion can induce such fervour in its defenders but I have yet to see any discussion on this, it's all been pro-Evo making an argument, Holo attempting to pick it apart (using freedom/constitution/scientific method arguments) and then pro-Evo picking apart that response. Unfortunately I haven't yet been able to gleam Holo's motivations from any of that. My personal perception is that it is due to upbringing by firmly religious parents and educators who ingrain the idea of Creation in youth that it becomes difficult/impossible to accept another hypothesis. + Show Spoiler +

On February 23 2012 14:27 Sogo Otika wrote:
If you have no absolute morals, then I could go murder a baby and say that it was relatively OK based on my own perception of what is right and wrong).

On February 23 2012 14:38 forgottendreams wrote:


It's not pointless at all, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations and beliefs of believers because I come from a family of atheists. You can either live in ignorance of each other or ask to see why and how they believe in some things. Thanks for the preachy and bland post though.