Originally posted by patauro Sonhouse, he is kidding, right?!
I think he was pointing out the unchanging view of religious people in regards to evolution, sticking to the main creationist story or ID stuff, as opposed to scientific evidence that may change views of a particular science, whatever science you are discussing. Religious folk invariably have no argument with say, mathematicians or astronomers or engineers because they don't impinge on their central doctrine. Only in the field of evolution do the religious set get their dander up. If they ever won that fight (very unlikely) but if they did, they would drop all pretense of an interest in science and go right back to literal biblical interpretations.
Originally posted by KellyJay I'm sure we will get it right one of these days. 🙂
Kelly
KellyJay, who has not understood the fundamental things about dinosaurs (He actually thinks that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time), should not participate in this discussion.
Originally posted by FabianFnas KellyJay, who has not understood the fundamental things about dinosaurs (He actually thinks that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time), should not participate in this discussion.
Go on, let him. He makes me laugh whilst i'm having my breakfast.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn Yes, but you point it out to try to justify your equivocation of religion and science.
In some places they are close to each other, others not so much.
Saying that does not add to or take away from either as far as they
being correct or false it only means they have somethings in common.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay In some places they are close to each other, others not so much.
Saying that does not add to or take away from either as far as they
being correct or false it only means they have somethings in common.
Kelly
…it only means they have something in common.…
But not much;
Science works by always changing to match what the evidence shows:
Religion generally doesn’t change to match what the evidence shows (at least not the fundamental sort). Instead it just says X and Y is true and you are just supposed to (at least that seems my impression of what the religious nuts say) just blindly except X and Y is true regardless of whether any evidence or reason says otherwise.
Originally posted by KellyJay In some places they are close to each other, others not so much.
Saying that does not add to or take away from either as far as they
being correct or false it only means they have somethings in common.
Kelly
KJ, do you still think that dinosaurs lived side by side with human beings in historic times?
Or have you learnt something new as you frequently visit the Science Forum?
It's that dang prankster God again, out there planting fossils to screw with our heads... I believe in you Jesus, even when all evidence tells me I shouldn't. Personally, I think we should blame the Gideons. Always running around planting fossils and bibles everywhere to confuse people. Damn, now I have to go listen to some Bill Hicks.
Originally posted by sonhouse I think he was pointing out the unchanging view of religious people in regards to evolution, sticking to the main creationist story or ID stuff, as opposed to scientific evidence that may change views of a particular science, whatever science you are discussing. Religious folk invariably have no argument with say, mathematicians or [b]astronomers or eng ...[text shortened]... p all pretense of an interest in science and go right back to literal biblical interpretations.[/b]
Not any more at least. Was it Galileo, Copernicus or both? I forget.
12 Jun '09 13:39
New just in: Birds not evolved from dinosaurs:
Back to Top