 |
|
|
|
| Virtually All Opposition To The Theory Of Evolution Is Religious Based |
| I don't see why people can't be a thiest and recognise that evolution is fact but it does appear that those who oppose evolution do so because they somehow believe that it questions the validity of their religion. I don't know of anyone who is non religious and disputes evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a theist. I know life evolved on this planet. I know the theory of evolution is a great unifying
theory.
So...
For once in all of your debating lives...
You should try to debate the real issue.
It's quite simple. It's called faulty religion. If we're talking major organized religions...it's
practically all of them.
If we're talking the gigantic movement away from these religions and into non-denomination churches
that has been taking place in the US for quite a few years now...you're talking a different
animal.
One that most of you seem completely oblivious to. There are many theists and religious people who
have nothing to do with the stereotypes applied by those who think they have religion all figured
out.
Many scientists know that science doesn't necessarily help itself on this matter. I can show you
plenty of scientific articles from the not too distand past that refer to the big bang as the
beginning of the universe. Look at the silly statements that were being made about "Ida" to generate
popular interest. There were many scientists that were cringing when the involved scientists were
commercializing "Ida".
Science should have never had anything to do with arguing about belief in God when it came to the
theory of evolution. They couldn't help themselves because they allowed themselves to be pushed over
the edge by faulty religion the same as militant atheists do. When this happens, all debate starts
spinning in meaningless circles.
The theory of evolution and the big bang theory do not address a creator in any shape, way or
form.
They seemingly contradict INTERPRETATIONS of scripture.
One more time for you people...
Who do you think voted the "creationists" out in Kansas? Atheists???? NOOOOOOOOOO.
It was religious people. They are the ones who voted the creationists OUT.
Does anybody besides me understand this?? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I personally have never met a person who disagrees with the theory of evolution and wasn't a
religious person..... I am sure there are a ocuple of people out there, but it is definitely the
majority. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I can't think of any opposition to evolution that doesn't come from religion. Is there any? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Perhaps but not all religious people are opposed to evolution. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I have only seen religious opposition to evolution. Of course at the same time I know of some very
intelligent people who believe in evolution and are also religious. It's just that I've never heard
an atheist coming out against the theory (not to say it couldn't happen), well we say theory, it
might as well be called a fact. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It certainly appears that way. Why such fear of reality? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
I think there are legitimate questions regarding the validity of the general theory of
evolution....it cannot even be characterized as a theory with a "high" level of certainty. The main
problem is not with theists denying reality, but with a clash of worldviews. One sees clearly from
the comments of renowned bioevolutionists that life and all its complexities from molecules to man
MUST be the result of "natural causes", regardless of the data. This is a philosophical position
and not a scientific conclusion. Therefore, the argument is largely not one of scientific evidence
but whose worldview is correct--naturalism vs theism. Thus, one would indeed expect those with
naturalistic, atheistic inclinations to be the most zealous for the general theory of evolution i.e
macroevolution. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Virtually but not all. It is hypocritical to bash religion but then turn around and treat evolution
as irrefutible fact when it is a scientific theory. You can argue sementics about how
scientific theory is different than regular theory but the fact of the matter is that scientific
theory and scientific fact are two different things. Furthermore to base evolution's
supposed validity on the fact that X ammount of scientists support it is nothing more than a
glorified bandwgon argument. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 Sep 2009 18:54
Sign In
