- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Doesn't it strike you as awfully coincidental? (Science vs Religious Belief)
Posted on 1/2/14 at 10:52 am to Revelator
Posted on 1/2/14 at 10:52 am to Revelator
quote:
You seem to imply that science and religion are incomparable. And I'm telling you that at one time, scientists were almost exclusively believers.
No no. Thats not what Im saying. What Im saying is:
Its no coincidence that many(not all) believers entrust their lives to science 99.9999% of the time and the .0001% of cases where they choose not to believe are cases where science runs contrary to their religion.
What Im saying is that might as well be a straight up admission that their conclusions are not rational, but instead emotional. How could it not be with those kind of numbers? It is no coincidence.
5
Posted on 1/2/14 at 10:55 am to Boom Angry
Examples? Anyone pre-Darwin doesn't count.
So we are to ignore the achievements of people like Sir Isaac Newton because it doesn't fit your liking? No thank you.
So we are to ignore the achievements of people like Sir Isaac Newton because it doesn't fit your liking? No thank you.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 10:55 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
I find it funny that anti-religious people ignore the fact the most sceintific discoveries were made by religious people.
You of course realize that those people likely all accept evolution as scientific fact and believe the genesis story to be a fable right? That would mean they do not fall into the categorization of the OP.
I am not categorizing all believers at all in fact, those examples really have nothing to do with the OP. Even the most genius scientist producing meaningful work can fall prey to this.
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 10:57 am
Posted on 1/2/14 at 10:57 am to AUbused
quote:
Its no coincidence that many(not all) believers entrust their lives to science 99.9999% of the time and the .0001% of cases where they choose not to believe are cases where science runs contrary to their religion.
I get all my nutrients from food items and yet, surprisingly, there are some foods I choose not to eat.
You seem to think people can't decide what is best suitable for themselves. Its take it all or face my wrath with you.
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 10:58 am
Posted on 1/2/14 at 10:57 am to AUbused
quote:
believers entrust their lives to science 99.9999% of the time
When has their life depended on the answer to how humans came to be? And humans live their lives in many ways directly contrary to science where their lives are put in danger (speeding/texting/drunk driving, cigarettes, alcohol, etc). We do things and believe things for various reasons.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 10:59 am to AUbused
quote:Conparing driving a car to the origin of all life is silly
Its no coincidence that many(not all) believers entrust their lives to science 99.9999% of the time and the .0001% of cases where they choose not to believe are cases where science runs contrary to their religion.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 10:59 am to AUbused
quote:
Its no coincidence that many(not all) believers entrust their lives to science 99.9999% of the time and the .0001% of cases where they choose not to believe are cases where science runs contrary to their religion.
Are those cases where in the science is solid? Man made global warming is NOT proven or settled. Is being responsible stewards of the environment proven to be a good thing? Yes. Are religious people called to do so by the creator? Yes.
If you want to talk evolution. Let's define what you mean by that term. If you are defining it as a total random event unguided by anything, I disagree. If you are saying some creatures and species change over time to adapt to their environment most people (if not all) would agree.
If you are going to argue man came from apes with no input you are making as big of leaps on faith (albeit faith in something else) as those who disagree.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:00 am to Boom Angry
quote:
Examples? Anyone pre-Darwin doesn't count.
This is just ridiculous
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:02 am to wilfont
quote:
I get all my nutrients from food items and yet, surprisingly, there are some foods I choose not to eat.
Im sorry but this isn't a very effective argument. Unless you are talking about not eating pork because of religious motives, which I suspect you are not.
Further, this is not one person we are talking about, this is millions of people, forming a pattern. In fact, pork eating would be a great example of a non-rational food choice. Whether you like apples or hate them doesn't really have any bearing on the OP argument.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:04 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Conparing driving a car to the origin of all life is silly
Im new here......but does this guy ever bring anything of substance to the table? Pretty high post count if the answer is no.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:04 am to AUbused
quote:
I am not categorizing all believers at all in fact, those examples really have nothing to do with the OP.
The OP specifically mentioned evolution and left the definition very wide open as to who was the "believers" he was talking about.
As I stated elsewhere, I do not believe in evolution in the way many claiming to be enlightened do.
I have seen too much science (B.s. in Zoology, countless experiments in Porcine reproductive endocrinology and physiology) to think we are a result of randomness.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:07 am to AUbused
quote:
Im new here
Yeah, I doubt that
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:07 am to C
quote:
We do things and believe things for various reasons.
So you don't find it kind of convenient that this small percentage of time just so happens to coincide with religious belief? It was the same with flat earth. We aren't talking about some new cutting edge quantum theory here.....we're talking evolution which has faced years of intense scientific scrutiny.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:08 am to Revelator
quote:
So we are to ignore the achievements of people like Sir Isaac Newton because it doesn't fit your liking? No thank you.
I'm not ignoring anything. My point is that before Darwin there was no good explanation as to how life on Earth grew to be so complex and diverse so it's not a surprise that older scientists would believe in God.
And I'm pretty sure Einstein was agnostic.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:09 am to AUbused
quote:
Im sorry but this isn't a very effective argument
Of course it is.
We're talking about people making personal belief decisions based upon their own life experiences, education and, in some cases, religious understanding. You seem to believe they can't utilize their full spectrum of knowledge when making decisions.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:09 am to AUbused
Do I think it's odd that many people don't accept that science is the infallible end-all of existence? No, not odd at all. "Science" has been found wrong and quite fallible throughout history.
Actually, it's interesting that oftentimes those who place their utmost faith in science do so, not out of knowledge but out of the same or similar faith used by believers in spiritual things.
Ask most secularists to expound on their belief in creation and what you'll get will not be scientific facts, but some abstract belief in very broad theories.
Actually, it's interesting that oftentimes those who place their utmost faith in science do so, not out of knowledge but out of the same or similar faith used by believers in spiritual things.
Ask most secularists to expound on their belief in creation and what you'll get will not be scientific facts, but some abstract belief in very broad theories.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:10 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
If you want to talk evolution. Let's define what you mean by that term. If you are defining it as a total random event unguided by anything, I disagree. If you are saying some creatures and species change over time to adapt to their environment most people (if not all) would agree.
If you are going to argue man came from apes with no input you are making as big of leaps on faith (albeit faith in something else) as those who disagree.
Neither evolution, nor science make any statements regarding "input". They speak to the process of change via natural selection.
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 11:11 am
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:11 am to FightinTigersDammit
Why? I trolled the SEC Rant for a long time before making an account, but not an alter.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:13 am to AUbused
It is hubris to think that human beings can "warm up" the Earth's atmosphere. It's laughable when you say it out loud.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 11:14 am to Powerman
quote:
Because people who don't believe in evolution are extremely stupid and deserve to be ridiculed.
You truly are an intellectual midget. The only excuse you can have, is that you are 5 years old.
Me: "I believe in God, and i believe evolution exists. But i believe there are some things that Evolution is not the answer for."
Powerman: "Your stupid, i hate you."
Which one, based on this conversation, is the intellectual superior?
Page 3 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News