• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Religion and/or Evolution? Vote!

religion or Evolution?

  • Religion

  • Evolution

Results are only viewable after voting.
SunSamurai

SunSamurai

Diamond Member
Yay or nay.

Edit:
I apologize for not putting in a "Both" selection in the poll!
 
Last edited:
Evolution. Religion is for fools. It's amazing how many billions of people willingly allow themselves to be mind-raped by the stupidity of religion.
 
I think it has limits, and that anything beyond what is (1) observable and (2) testable is based on assumptions, and therefore poor science.

If you want to argue for a historical theory of evolution that portrays millions of years of history, fine, but I don't subscribe to that. I believe in solid, repeatable, and testable science. Evolution of dinosaurs is not testable. Neither is abiogenesis (any experimentation in that specifically will inherently be more an argument for intelligent design rather than evolution).
 
Last edited:
Trollposting OP apparently doesn't realize that the Catholic church accepts evolution as being one of God's natural laws.
 
Your poll suggests that must be one or the other. I think limiting yourself to 'one or the other,' blinds you to much of the world.
 
What kind of poll is this? Religion and evolution aren't opposites or mutually exclusive...

There are Christian scientists who study evolution.
 
Locut0s said:
Religion as some airy philosophical concept maybe not. But as religions are actually practised 90% of the time, yeah they are.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, current Catholic thought is that evolution is natural law and the default behavior for the universe, except (as in the case of the creation of mankind) when their creator decides to intervene.

I haven't made an effort to survey the other flavors of Christianity, but I suspect that's a common view in many of them.
 
DaveSimmons said:
From what I've read, current Catholic thought is that evolution is natural law and the default behavior for the universe, except (as in the case of the creation of mankind) when their creator decides to intervene.

I haven't made an effort to survey the other flavors of Christianity, but I suspect that's a common view in many of them.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you have to give way to science all things that science has shown to be true. At what point do you stop giving ground to science then, and at what point then do you still have a religion. If you are willing to give science EVERYTHING that science has shown to be true or very likely true (which to me you obviously have too) then all you are left with is the philosophical underpinnings and that's what I meant by this is the only way in which they are not mutually exclusive.

Many if not most branches of protestantism don't seem to like evolution all that much and forget about Islam. Those account for a heck of a lot of people.
 
Crono said:
I think it has limits, and that anything beyond what is (1) observable and (2) testable is based on assumptions, and therefore poor science.

If you want to argue for a historical theory of evolution that portrays millions of years of history, fine, but I don't subscribe to that. I believe in solid, repeatable, and testable science. Evolution of dinosaurs is not testable. Neither is abiogenesis (any experimentation in that specifically will inherently be more an argument for intelligent design rather than evolution).
Click to expand...

Right. Which is why we can only convict people for committing crimes that the judge and jury were actually present for. That's why our prisons are virtually empty and in the process of being converted into Walmarts.
 
Religion as some airy philosophical concept maybe not. But as religions are actually practised 90% of the time, yeah they are.
Click to expand...
Unless you're talking about young-earth creationism, then they are not mutually exclusive.

I think it has limits, and that anything beyond what is (1) observable and (2) testable is based on assumptions, and therefore poor science.

If you want to argue for a historical theory of evolution that portrays millions of years of history, fine, but I don't subscribe to that. I believe in solid, repeatable, and testable science. Evolution of dinosaurs is not testable. Neither is abiogenesis (any experimentation in that specifically will inherently be more an argument for intelligent design rather than evolution).
Click to expand...
Evolution is testable. You test it by using the observations that you already made through the fossil record, or with species that are evolving presently. It's not great, but given the circumstances, it is the best that is physically possible for now. As for abiogenesis, how is that an argument for intelligent design?
 
God evolved from the nasty, spoiled two year old of the Old Testament into the girly-man hippie of the New Testament so evolution is possible.
 
SunSamurai said:
Either explain how this is a 'troll' or you're a waste of space. :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

It is trolling because evolution and religion aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

You know this, but ignore it with the goal of creating a (stupidly) controversial thread. I bet you don't really care about the results of your (inane) poll, but instead are just interested in seeing people squabble over it. You are simply baiting, and that is trolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top