A Civil Discussion: Evolution, Science, Theology, Atheism, Climate

Okay; I want to revisit this theory of evolution.

If man evolved from monkeys as the theory goes, why didn't the OTHER monkeys and apes evolve?
 
If man is causing global warming, as the quacks claim, why did the planet warm and freeze several times before man ever invented the gasoline combustible engine?
 
You're gonna have to ban a hell of a lot more pinhead liberals if you want a civil discussion on any topic....
 
NOVA said:
You're gonna have to ban a hell of a lot more pinhead liberals if you want a civil discussion on any topic....
Click to expand...

LOL, true. Actually, I just wanted to post what an actual civil discussion LOOKS like to those who see it as a foreign thought. ;)
 
I loved how he put the quality of intellectualism and scientific study on climate at the bottom rung of the ladder of actual physics discussions. :laugh:
 
I disagree w/ the basic premise, that the scientific community has opined that if their theories are true, religion must be false (if I'm reading that correctly).

Many scientists ARE religious; some have spoken about their pursuits as ultimately searching for god and an explanation for the universe. I always reject the premise that belief in evolution & abiogenesis are inconsistent w/ a belief in god & religion.
 
There is nothing civil or intellectual in a discussion about evoulution from a religious nut job.
You premise is based on savage first century magical thinking that requires a level of insanity to buy into.
You are hopelessly out of touch with reality.
 
Leonthecat said:
There is nothing civil or intellectual in a discussion about evoulution from a religious nut job.
You premise is based on savage magical thinking that requires a level of insanity to buy into.
You are hopelessly out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

It's apparently difficult for YOU, not for Berlinski.
 
WhinyThingy said:
I disagree w/ the basic premise, that the scientific community has opined that if their theories are true, religion must be false (if I'm reading that correctly).

Many scientists ARE religious; some have spoken about their pursuits as ultimately searching for god and an explanation for the universe. I always reject the premise that belief in evolution & abiogenesis are inconsistent w/ a belief in god & religion.
Click to expand...

How does the THEORY of evolution square with religious beliefs?
 
LeontheMORON said:
There is nothing civil or intellectual in a discussion about evoulution from a religious nut job.
You premise is based on savage first century magical thinking that requires a level of insanity to buy into.
You are hopelessly out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

:lolup: Lying leftists get so angry when dealing with facts.

giphy.gif
 
Stretch said:
The pretentious science community for the last 30 or 40 years opine that "Because scientific theories are true, religious beliefs must be false." David Berlinski, International Review of Science editor; author of The Devil's Delusion - Atheism And Its Scientific Pretensions

Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris.

For the record, Berlinski is agnostic.

Click to expand...

I read his book.

Very intelligent fellow—and pretty entertaining lol. Berlinski has all of credentials of the elitists in academia but he’s dismissed as a crank because only cranks disbelieve evolution and other dogmas.

Therefore, Berlinski is a crank lol. That actually passes for logic these days.
 
Stretch said:
It's apparently difficult for YOU, not for Berlinski.
Click to expand...

I have a difficult time discussing anything with insane people. To believe in magical beings, as you do, requires a level of insanity that I am not willing to recognize as a viable alternative to rational thought.
In short , if you believe ancient supernatural events really happened, you have to be insane.
 
Darth Omar said:
I read his book.

Very intelligent fellow—and pretty entertaining lol. Berlinski has all of credentials of the elitists in academia but he’s dismissed as a crank because only cranks disbelieve evolution and other dogmas.

Therefore, Berlinski is a crank lol. That actually passes for logic these days.
Click to expand...

IKR? He doesn't have the "snob factor". I loved what he said of his Hitchens debates. He tells Hitchens when it's over something along the lines of "How could you say that?" Hitchens just mumbled something like "Oh I have to say things like" LOL. It's like that's what the elites want to hear, so he just says it. Brilliant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top