Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says

[netrox]

evolution is not something to "believe" in. It's a fact. To say that no evolution occurred is not proving anything at all.

It's like saying, "I believe in colors." when there are colors.

 

[Lighthouse77]

We are referring to human evolution and how they came to exist (hence Adam and Eve)

 

[Lighthouse77]

There is one fundamental person who believe the Earth is old and we had creatures before Adam and Eve (called the gap theory), His name was Scofield. some fundamental have study from his notes, but most disagree with some of what he wrote (especially that issue)

 

[flip]

There's a religious movement in the USA called [url="http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?vendorId=FWNE.fw..fu095600.a#FWNE.fw..fu095600.a]Fundmentalism[/url] among some Protestants in the USA; fundmentalist doctrine is that the bible is inerrant and that envolution didn't happen. The bible is to be taken literally and that it's infallable according to them. Many of these people are conservatives and want to ban the teaching of evolution in our schools. Small wonder we're behind in science. They've been a big force with the Republicans here in the USA during the 80s and the 90s.

Not all Christians believe in this kind of thing. Though I come from three generations of ministers on my father's side, I'm told that my grandfather Smith never was a fundmentalist. My father is a conservative but he has never agreed with the fundmentalists regarding the bible.

I see. We got a small share of fundamentalists among protestants, but they are keeping a low profile compared to the states as I understand. In europe, the demand of creationism in school is mostly limited to muslim immigrants. And they seldom talk loudly in the media anyway about those ideas anyway.

Perhaps we have had our part of long and tiring conflicts, both religous and non religious, and just don't care anymore what different groups believe.

Can't say the same for climate deniers, they are everywhere at the moment, like it's a trend to be a denier.

 

[flip]

They only wanted to ban it because their tax money is paying and they made it a mandatory that children must be schooled. And not a lot of people can't afford private school nor they can do homeschool. Now if they would just allow vouchers, but they won't.

btw, I doubt every christians in your area believe in evolution either. I mean, Answer in Genesis visit other countries too, and they usually have plenty of people who are interested in them (I believe some of Answer in Genesis guys live in Australia).

Some christians here perhaps take the genesis literally, but they don't seem to care about evolution teached in school.

It's amusing how many people don't know what the bible says. When I tell people the bible have two different versions of how God created the world, some people don't believe me. Hope you are better educated in the states!

 

[flip]

Second here, I'm Christian and don't believe in evolution, even is creationism due difficult to believe in one side so I'm goes with both sides.

Most christians I know here, believe that God created the universe and is the master behind this all, and human evolved from simple life like described by science, so it's both for them I guess.

But a relative of me, that not is a christian, don't believe in evolution, it's too accidental that people evolved from some bacterias according to him, so it's not only religious people that have problems with evolution... He simply don't know how this all came into beeing, but have problems with the most theories presented to him

 

[darkdog]

Denying is a legitimate term - if you deny that it's happening, you're a denier.

Call them whatever you want, but it's a great way to turn people off. After all, denier is a term used to describe people who say the holocaust, an event which happened in the past, didn't happen. You're now applying it to people who are skeptical that predictions about the future- events which haven't happened yet- are going to happen.

Based on the "evidence" we see here, it's definitely faith in work. Faith can make people enter a state of denial.

I don't see the point calling the spade something else than it is.

We've been told all along to trust the scientists- to take it on faith. Seeing the way they behave, I refuse to do that. I am agnostic on the extent of man's role in changing the climate and the consequences of that.

Do you acknowledge that influential climate scientists were trying to use their sway to keep journals from publishing papers merely because their conclusions don't agree with the global warming orthodoxy? How am I supposed to accept such a science except by dogmatic faith?

 

[darkdog]

hard core capitalists do NOT care about environment - they are more interested in making bucks with little regard for social or environmental responsibility. Note that most "climate warming deniers" are funded by oil companies and economists, not climatologists.

There are people who would rape the environment to make a buck, so I certainly approve of reasonable environmental regulations. However, I could probably be considered a hard core capitalist and one of the reasons is that capitalism is better for the environment. Capitalism provides a standard of living that is unmatched by any other system attempted by humans. Countries with high standards of living have the resources to develop and implement environmentally friendly technologies. Poor countries don't have that luxury. They don't have time to care about that stuff when they're worried about mere survival. If you don't believe me, go breathe the air in China. It's far worse than anything we would ever tolerate here in the United States. (Don't actually do that. I don't want you getting sick).

 

[Foxrac]

There are people who would rape the environment to make a buck, so I certainly approve of reasonable environmental regulations. However, I could probably be considered a hard core capitalist and one of the reasons is that capitalism is better for the environment. Capitalism provides a standard of living that is unmatched by any other system attempted by humans. Countries with high standards of living have the resources to develop and implement environmentally friendly technologies. Poor countries don't have that luxury. They don't have time to care about that stuff when they're worried about mere survival. If you don't believe me, go breathe the air in China. It's far worse than anything we would ever tolerate here in the United States. (Don't actually do that. I don't want you getting sick).

Agreed, I noticed that socialist is more suit to poorer countries, especially in Latin America.

China has been become more improved with visual of environment but pollution is bad due they don't have good regulation to take care of pollution.

Capitalist would work so best and fair if regulated, if without regulation so it goes screw up in anytime, simple example would say employees need have break time or pay $7 per hour at minimum wage so some cases could be bad for companies.

 

[flip]

Call them whatever you want, but it's a great way to turn people off. After all, denier is a term used to describe people who say the holocaust, an event which happened in the past, didn't happen. You're now applying it to people who are skeptical that predictions about the future- events which haven't happened yet- are going to happen.

We've been told all along to trust the scientists- to take it on faith. Seeing the way they behave, I refuse to do that. I am agnostic on the extent of man's role in changing the climate and the consequences of that.

Do you acknowledge that influential climate scientists were trying to use their sway to keep journals from publishing papers merely because their conclusions don't agree with the global warming orthodoxy? How am I supposed to accept such a science except by dogmatic faith?

I have no problem with an agnostic stance, it makes sense. What's weird, is when people post stuff that is so simplified it gets illogical, and presents it as some kind of evidence.

The stuff you mention about journals, is from the so called "climategate". You claiming to have to resort to faith, declaring yourself an agnostic, while buying flawed conclusions from deniers is... faith? ..good luck.

 

[deafskeptic]

Some christians here perhaps take the genesis literally, but they don't seem to care about evolution teached in school.

It's amusing how many people don't know what the bible says. When I tell people the bible have two different versions of how God created the world, some people don't believe me. Hope you are better educated in the states!

They're not anymore educated than the Christians where you live. For all the talk about studying the bible and worshiping God here here in the USA, there's surprising little knowledge about the origins of the Bible.

What flip here is referring to is common knowledge among those who do serious study of the bible.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

I thought we're not allowed to talk about religions here?

Regarding the Bible, my grandmother said this: "The Bible is a wonderful book. Everyone has a different interpretation of it to meet their own needs."

 

[Foxrac]

I thought we're not allowed to talk about religions here?

Regarding the Bible, my grandmother said this: "The Bible is a wonderful book. Everyone has a different interpretation of it to meet their own needs."

I know that but I would talk to Alex about want re-open the religion section but it will going be hard.

 

[Calvin]

Mod note:

Reminder -- Religious discussion is not permitted until further notice.