You can look at something and come to a conclusion, calling a person close minded because they didn't come to the same conclusion that you did even when you looked at the same set of facts just comes off as you not having anyway to argue or prove your stance.FEOS wrote:
That's a convenience to justify one's close-mindedness. Nothing more.Macbeth wrote:
Either that or considered, looked at facts, lold, then took the stance of religion is a crutch.FEOS wrote:
Actually, it is. Pretty much defines close-mindedness, as those who take that position refuse to even consider the possibility of a supreme being(s).
Nothing in evolution excludes the existence of a creator. Even an evolutionist takes a leap of faith at some point.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
My comment wasn't meant to imply that all of America is the way that my city is. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though.Kmarion wrote:
I honestly loled. America is very diverse in it's culture and education. It appears you live in an ass backwards uneducated shit hole. (By your own account)Turquoise wrote:
Sadly, the same is true of where I live, and it's one of the many reasons I'm slowly making my way up to Toronto, where people are definitely more cultured and educated.Reciprocity wrote:
You should visit rural, Southern Oregon. I cound introduce you to countless examples of ignorant white trash. Probably 90% of the people I interact with are either too stupid to understand the most basic concepts of evolution and, therefor, revert to christian mythology or believe evolution is the temptation of the devil. I work with people who firmly believe that the world is between six and ten thousand years old and that dinosaur bones are the work of satan.
I understood that when you said where I live. I loled at the slowly making my way up to Canada remark. I imagined a slow migration of sorts for you. .. trying out new states along the way.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ah... I see.
Wow, that's impressive in a bad way.
I've yet to meet a person in person who believes in young-earth creationism. I'm thankful for it.
I've yet to meet a person in person who believes in young-earth creationism. I'm thankful for it.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
If you believe the producer that is.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I have. They refuse to accept any evidence, whatsoever. Especially geographical, when you mention tectonic plates, pangea, flora and fauna fossil evidence they still don't accept it. You ask where the evidence is of a great flood though, and they make up something ridiculous like the Grand Canyon has sedimentary layers as proof their was a flood.Spark wrote:
I've yet to meet a person in person who believes in young-earth creationism.
Not the same exactly as the Davinci Code was not based on actual events as the author have pointed out on several occasions ... Evolution is a much bigger threat to the "believers" that don't trust their faith enough ...Kmarion wrote:
I don't buy that. The Davinci Code was more controversial than this. The distributors probably declined for other reasons and the producer isn't willing to face it.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Apparently the UK isn't far off in terms of not believing evolution.
The only person I have met that I know doesn't believe in evolution was a medical student, who I believe did well and is now a doctor.
As far as athiests being cosed minded with regard to a supreme being. It's based on their being no evidence for one. The closest anyone can get is lack of current understanding (ie. 'I don't understand how X works therefore God did it' type reasoning). If sensible evidence comes along then I'm sure most athiest will covert (and most religious people will have to as well). If I categorically state that goblins, the tooth fairy and Santa Clause don't exist just because there's no evidence that they exist am I being closed minded?
The only person I have met that I know doesn't believe in evolution was a medical student, who I believe did well and is now a doctor.
As far as athiests being cosed minded with regard to a supreme being. It's based on their being no evidence for one. The closest anyone can get is lack of current understanding (ie. 'I don't understand how X works therefore God did it' type reasoning). If sensible evidence comes along then I'm sure most athiest will covert (and most religious people will have to as well). If I categorically state that goblins, the tooth fairy and Santa Clause don't exist just because there's no evidence that they exist am I being closed minded?
I understand it's not exactly the same. But religiously controversial none the less. Distributors care about one thing.. money. The producers claim is bogus. What about Religulous?Varegg wrote:
Not the same exactly as the Davinci Code was not based on actual events as the author have pointed out on several occasions ... Evolution is a much bigger threat to the "believers" that don't trust their faith enough ...Kmarion wrote:
I don't buy that. The Davinci Code was more controversial than this. The distributors probably declined for other reasons and the producer isn't willing to face it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Good points... I'm pretty sure this movie will eventually make it here under some distributor, especially when you consider the success of Religulous.Kmarion wrote:
I understand it's not exactly the same. But religiously controversial none the less. Distributors care about one thing.. money. The producers claim is bogus. What about Religulous?Varegg wrote:
Not the same exactly as the Davinci Code was not based on actual events as the author have pointed out on several occasions ... Evolution is a much bigger threat to the "believers" that don't trust their faith enough ...Kmarion wrote:
I don't buy that. The Davinci Code was more controversial than this. The distributors probably declined for other reasons and the producer isn't willing to face it.
What Fodder posted about the U.K. is pretty scary though. In Canada, the story is a bit different.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16178
"Many adults in Canada believe the theory of evolution is correct, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 59 per cent of respondents think human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.
Conversely, 22 per cent of respondents believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years, while 19 per cent are not sure."
The percentage isn't quite as high as I would've liked, but it's still an improvement.
Fodder's post does contradict another survey done in the U.K. and many other countries, however. According to the source below, the percentage for Britain is 73.4%
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=507
Of course, if the poll is being technical, Britain only accounts for part of the U.K., so technically, this poll might not have gotten results from Northern Ireland.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-09-14 00:53:55)
I had no idea christian simpletons are so rare. The born-again i work with thinks harry potter is satan's effort to indoctrinate children in the ways of witchcraft. All part of living in the small town heartland of america.
Some people love to misunderstand tbh and some have great problems separating fiction from facts ... Evolution allthough based on certain facts will also still be a movie aka fiction, the people that rely on movies to confirm their believes have problems ...Kmarion wrote:
I understand it's not exactly the same. But religiously controversial none the less. Distributors care about one thing.. money. The producers claim is bogus. What about Religulous?Varegg wrote:
Not the same exactly as the Davinci Code was not based on actual events as the author have pointed out on several occasions ... Evolution is a much bigger threat to the "believers" that don't trust their faith enough ...Kmarion wrote:
I don't buy that. The Davinci Code was more controversial than this. The distributors probably declined for other reasons and the producer isn't willing to face it.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
But that's evidence of a long-term series of deposits (layerS) not a short-term flood which would just leave a single thick single deposit and nothing after... hang on, never mind. Probably doesn't know what 'sedimentary' means.AussieReaper wrote:
I have. They refuse to accept any evidence, whatsoever. Especially geographical, when you mention tectonic plates, pangea, flora and fauna fossil evidence they still don't accept it. You ask where the evidence is of a great flood though, and they make up something ridiculous like the Grand Canyon has sedimentary layers as proof their was a flood.Spark wrote:
I've yet to meet a person in person who believes in young-earth creationism.
PS. Try mentioning radiological dating. 99% probability that they talk about C14 dating and 99.999% that they go silent after you say "yes and so what? C14 is useless for these sort of timescales"
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I've considered it, reckon its improbable, will review the situation come the second coming.FEOS wrote:
Actually, it is. Pretty much defines close-mindedness, as those who take that position refuse to even consider the possibility of a supreme being(s).
This is also true. The existence of the universe itself is so improbable it practically defies explanation.Kmarion wrote:
Nothing in evolution excludes the existence of a creator. Even an evolutionist takes a leap of faith at some point.
It is funny that people in the US take creationism seriously though, either there are lot of them or they wield undue influence for it to be a national talking point.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-14 02:50:10)
Fuck Israel
Hence the distinction between old and young-earth creationism. The former is just people making a point about their religious beliefs but still maintiaining a modicum of scientific common sense... the latter is just baloney.Kmarion wrote:
Nothing in evolution excludes the existence of a creator. Even an evolutionist takes a leap of faith at some point.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Coming to a conclusion is one thing.Macbeth wrote:
You can look at something and come to a conclusion, calling a person close minded because they didn't come to the same conclusion that you did even when you looked at the same set of facts just comes off as you not having anyway to argue or prove your stance.FEOS wrote:
That's a convenience to justify one's close-mindedness. Nothing more.Macbeth wrote:
Either that or considered, looked at facts, lold, then took the stance of religion is a crutch.
Rejecting the possibility that your conclusion may be incorrect is something completely different.
The former is not close-minded.
The latter is.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Replace "creationism" with any other discussion point. It's a vocal minority (at least the young-earth creationists), at best.Dilbert_X wrote:
This is also true. The existence of the universe itself is so improbable it practically defies explanation.Kmarion wrote:
Nothing in evolution excludes the existence of a creator. Even an evolutionist takes a leap of faith at some point.
It is funny that people in the US take creationism seriously though, either there are lot of them or they wield undue influence for it to be a national talking point.
What gets press is what is controversial, not what is popular.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
science [evolution] nether confirms nor denies the existence of god
Either it denies the existence of god or it suggests the bible is wrong.madmax wrote:
science [evolution] nether confirms nor denies the existence of god
Creationism, as laid out in the bible, and evolution can't both be right.
Fuck Israel
Yes, they can.Dilbert_X wrote:
Either it denies the existence of god or it suggests the bible is wrong.madmax wrote:
science [evolution] nether confirms nor denies the existence of god
Creationism, as laid out in the bible, and evolution can't both be right.
Just depends on if you are a literalist when it comes to the Bible...which the majority of Christians aren't.
There's even been an astrophysicist who did the calculations to show that the Big Bang theory isn't in contradiction with the six days put forward in the Bible. Quite interesting, tbh.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
So we're going with the bible is wrong - or not meant to be taken literally.Just depends on if you are a literalist when it comes to the Bible...which the majority of Christians aren't.
Pretty sure the astrophysicist didn't from instability to garden of eden in six days.
Fuck Israel
It does not, but as there is no evidence for a God, then the scientific assumption has to be that no God exists unless in the future sufficient evidence for a God existing is discovered.madmax wrote:
science [evolution] nether confirms nor denies the existence of god
It's the same as with dragons, Leprechauns and ghosts. There's no scientific evidence that they do exist so we assume they don't until some evidence shows up.
Religion on the other hand doesn't require a strict evidence based methodology into what it has faith in allowing religious folk to believe/have faith in whatever they want, just as long as they accept that science doesn't agree and doesn't have to agree.
The bible was understood to be allegorical back around Galileo's time. Some of the worlds greatest scientist were Christian (Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, ..). The idea that the bible is a book of historical fact is only assumed by literalist.Dilbert_X wrote:
Either it denies the existence of god or it suggests the bible is wrong.madmax wrote:
science [evolution] nether confirms nor denies the existence of god
Creationism, as laid out in the bible, and evolution can't both be right.
Xbone Stormsurgezz