"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Examiner.com

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Comments
3,101 - 3,120 of 13,514 Comments Last updated Feb 18, 2013

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3233
Apr 27, 2012
 
defender wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki /Lazarus_taxon Since you guys love Wikipedia so much.., Check out some of these millions of year old species out and tell me why no evolution has taken place...
Evolution proceeds at diferent rates for different animals. If an animal is well suited for an environment, and there is little selection pressure against it, it may remain static for a long time. Darwin himself remarked about it in his book.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3234
Apr 27, 2012
 
The pet whisperer wrote:
Without proof that 1+1 equals 2, science could not build space ships and more and yet science claims that there is no proof in science.
Must our schools listen and teach what the scientist morons claim!
Our science teachers have to be morons. Let's give em a raise. Hahahahahaha
DO you know that mathematics has proof?

And that science and mathematics are not exactly same?

Please learn the basics before you embarass yourselves more.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3235
Apr 27, 2012
 
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you don't know the difference between your a$$ and a hole in the ground so what do you care?
And that is supposed to be a counter argument to the point that maths and science are different?
Will you admit that you made a mistake when you came up with that silly "1+1=2 has no proof in science" argument?
I don't expect you to admit mistakes. People like you don't.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

McMurdo Station

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3236
Apr 27, 2012
 
RLW 56 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not disparaging evolution per se. It is the best story that man has come up with on his own for our origins. It just needs to be recognized that it evolves a lot of speculation into the past that is just that speculation. They have no more scientific evidence of those events than the poor creationists do.
It is the only story (evolution) that makes logical sense and does not involve magik.

Much, much more likely that evolution is true, than creationism.

Man has been writing since about 3,100+- BC. In all that time the only recorded instances of magik being used, in other than fictional stories, was in religious works (that I know of).

There have never been any magik verified. Ancient peoples believed in magik even up to the supposed time of Christ. The story of Moses asking the Pharaoh to let his people go has the court magicians performing real magik if you believe the story...this is probably a minor proof (many other proofs exist) that the story is man-made and not godly inspired.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3237
Apr 27, 2012
 
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
The I read of your post I'm slowly starting to agree that must have indeed been brought forth by a chimp...
Yeah - resort to insults when you are out of logic.
Anonymous

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3238
Apr 27, 2012
 
The pet whisperer wrote:
<quoted text>
You then wrote the above. You say they are not claiming anything. Yea, right. sure there are some morons around here somewhere, that will believe you.
Speculation is not claiming something to be true, they have never said this is true, it is merely where their research has lead them so far. All of physical reality is made up electrically charged particles. It is in this way that it is like an electronic simulation. As I said earlier it is very real.

And by the way, the entire field of quantum physics and mechanics does not have anyone's agenda, they are merely doing science. I thank you for letting me take the pulse of some of those in the evolution debate.

Have a nice day.
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3239
Apr 27, 2012
 
Most people don't think before they write. We all make mistakes. However, there is a difference. When forgotten or cared not for, it's easy enough to point out.
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3241
Apr 27, 2012
 
If you don't believe you are truly smart, you should not answer the question, because you will only embarrass yourself.

Here is where we separate the wheat from the chaff.
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3242
Apr 27, 2012
 
If you don't believe you are truly smart, you should not answer the question, because you will only embarrass yourself.

Here is where we separate the wheat from the chaff. There is only one correct answer and all will know it, when they hear It.
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3243
Apr 27, 2012
 
Where are you chimney, polymath, RLW56, RPK58?
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3244
Apr 27, 2012
 
Here's a hint, it's as plain as the nose on your face. It seems all the morons have deserted us.
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3245
Apr 27, 2012
 
Just call me thread killer. Lmao

“The King of R&R”

Level 1

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3246
Apr 28, 2012
 
The pet whisperer wrote:
Just call me thread killer. Lmao
You and your ilk say that the Jeebus died for our sins. You do know that the jeebus never died. SO "Who" died for "our sins"?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3247
Apr 28, 2012
 
The pet whisperer wrote:
When one of you morons can show proof that you can separate proof from evidence, fact and truth and you quit your childishness, perhaps you can go onto something else. Oops, all you have is the same old cut and paste over and over. The only time you offer any difference, is when you have new to call names, as you hump each others legs for support.
If you think god is real, prove it to us. Until you've done that, you haven't accomplished anything by being here.
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3248
Apr 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

That went right past ya huh. Oh well, you weren't even considered, so it's ok, just shut your eyes real tight and keep saying, la la la la la la la.

Y'all keep wanting to prove how smart you are and that your group is always right, because you have science on your side, suggesting that the scientific method is so much smarter and by extension, so here is a real chance for your clique.

However, it seems that not even one of you can answer.
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3249
Apr 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Lol, would you like to change the subject now that you know youre an idiot?
The pet whisperer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3250
Apr 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

There might be one truly smart person in 3 million, because of the utter stupidity created by a fully bribed and corrupt congress, press and law making body, which doesn't want smart people. There could be literally thousands of very smart people in 1 million, if taught properly.

How many scientists are in the entire world and how many are actually recognized? Polly wanna cracker?

“The King of R&R”

Level 1

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3251
Apr 28, 2012
 
The pet whisperer wrote:
There might be one truly smart person in 3 million, because of the utter stupidity created by a fully bribed and corrupt congress, press and law making body, which doesn't want smart people. There could be literally thousands of very smart people in 1 million, if taught properly.
How many scientists are in the entire world and how many are actually recognized? Polly wanna cracker?
Here, eat this cracker:

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3252
Apr 28, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't agree that it was "thought possible" (at least not by most physicists). I would wager that most physicists fully expected a flaw in the experiment. At the very least, many more physicists found an experimental error to be far more likely than the idea of faster-than-light travel, which would have required a drastic change to many basic ideas of physics.
That it would. And science is still open to the possibility should new info be found in the future. Even QM is already seen that way to many. It requires throwing out classical physics assumptions (causality), to the point where fundies around here will bite their own tongues off before accepting that idea. After all, something's always gotta have a cause, right?
Drew Smith wrote:
The very idea of "supernatural" is that it is "beyond" natural. As such, how would it follow the scientific method? It's essentially meaningless.
Oh, I agree. There's no real meaningful definitions, hence they're currently useless to science. But that's the fundie's problem.

;-)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3253
Apr 28, 2012
 
RLW 56 wrote:
Speaking of credibility the YECers have as much cred as the evolutionist/natural methodology does. Neither side was there when the beginning happened and therefore, neither side can be truly scientific in their explanation of beginnings.
There's a reason the phrase "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?" is considered a facepalm in court.
RLW 56 wrote:
Both have some evidence, from which they extrapolate what they think happened. The Yecers take the view that God revealed to them how it happened through the Bible. There is actually some scientific evidence which they choose to interpret in support of their cause.
Young Earthers have zero evidence, period.
RLW 56 wrote:
The evolutionist view, is based on presuppositions of materialism (always a closed universe material explanation, nothing else will be considered) and uniformitarianism (what we see today has to be the way it always was).
Uniformitarianism and materialism are not assumed, only observed. YEC's assume magic can make all different in the past and magic can fix all problems that arise from that assumption.
RLW 56 wrote:
Both look at the same evidence through two different sets of glasses and reach different conclusions.
Except only one uses the scientific method. It ain't the creationists.
RLW 56 wrote:
The scientific method involves something being observable, repeatable, and verifiable. While "micro-evolution" (mutation within a species), "macro-evolution" has never been nor never wil be observed (if true takes too long). Therefore, most of that is called evolution is merely speculation. Go to the scientific sights and see how often they use terms
like "appears," "seems," "it must have." These are not scientific fact terms. They are speculations, which is all any of us can do. There is nothing wrong with that, just call it what it is. Don't hide behind the cloak of "science."
Sorry, but "macro" evolution IS observable, repeatable, and verifiable. That is WHY it's accepted by the scientific community. It is only rejected by religious fundies (and the occasional cranks) for non-scientific reasons.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••