I think there are more who reject it that even includes scientists IMHO, not that I do, but I also believe in God.
this continues to support the study that people who don't have an understanding of evolution are likely to reject it
I think there are more who reject it that even includes scientists IMHO, not that I do, but I also believe in God.
its a likelihood, not a definitive. correlation, not causation.
people who have a misunderstanding of evolution are quite likely to reject it. they expect there to either be a bigfoot type creature, or that an ape on day gave birth to a modern human, or something ridiculous of the sort, and so naturally they reject it.
those who study the theory enough to where they get a firm understanding tend to see how it lines up with the facts
And I guess you're an "expert" on the field....
What proof do you have that God doesn't exist spurraider21?????
what proof do you have that red/blue polkadot unicorns don't exist?
where did i say that?
Even though I happen to think this is a valid question, debaters would reject it due to it being a negative premise if I am not mistaken.
And thus the burden of proof rests upon the one making the conclusion, in this case "that God exists".
However some would argue that the burden of proof rests upon the FIRST one making ANY claim, either positive or negative.
burden of proof lies upon those making the claim. otherwise people can ask ridiculous questions like the one i died about polkadot covered unicorns.
but that doesn't mean there aren't two sides to the coin.
first of all, regardless of the burden of proof being on the theist's side and proof not existing, that's not to say their conclusion is wrong... its just without merit.
and there are some like chinook who argue that having a god is the default position and saying there is no god IS the claim that requires proof. i personally don't buy it, but its arguable
"those who study the theory enough to where they get a firm understanding tend to see how it lines up with the facts"
Again...this is a no-win situation. No amount of back and forth will ever make you or me believe that the other side is correct. No matter how much you research the evolution of man side...I still don't believe it. You could spend the next 50 years of your life trying to persuade me otherwise...it still isn't going to be enough.
And the 1/2 man 1/2 ape comment was prob a little much...I'll give you that. I'm not saying that because "Bigfoot" hasn't been found...that is why I believe God created Man. You know what I mean. If it takes millions of years for Man to evolve...there should be countless variations of man buried in the Earth. I mean with the same species of fish....countless differents types have been found. Same with sharks, alligators, etc. (Basically any pre-historic animal) For all the digging man has done for thousands of years....we still haven't found anything remotely close to a man/ape hybrid. How come??? Maybe man didn't evolve from a fish to an ape to modern man. It's a pretty good arguement imo.....call me uneducated or I haven't done enough research if you want. People of mine and your ilk are pretty set in stone on this arguement....
Yes, I have read his debates.
But in school we debated issues like this and it was usually the one who made the claim first who had the burden of proof.
Maybe things have changed since then, but I doubt they changed that much.
Anyway, I understand your point about "merit".
saying i've studied evolution doesn't mean i'm an expert. i've also taken studied chemistry extensively but i wouldn't call myself an expert.
saying that no amount of evidence will sway your view is archaic and backwards
there are many variations of man buried in the earth, just look up hominid fossils
If i spent the next 50 years trying to argue my creationism ideals....would you change your mind? Prob not. I of course, will never have any proof of the existance of God.
It's the same thing....just because I say that I won't change my mind doesn't make me archaic or backwards. It's who I am...It's what I believe. If I believe that an omnipotent all-powerful being created the universe and Man...I will never had a shred of evidence to offer you. Just because I don't have this evidence...you won't even consider my side is correct???
Dude...like I've said a million times...you can believe whatever you want to. No concrete proof of the big bang, evolution, polkadot unicorns, Bigfoot, or God has ever been found. That doesn't mean one side is more correct or even plausible than the other.
Some genius could spend his whole life and write a mathematical formula, prob a very simple 1st or 2nd order linear differential equation (because the simplest equations are normally the most accurate ones) on a chalk/whiteboard that he believes proves the existance of a big bang theory. 5 minutes later some other genius will come back and say he doesn't believe it to be true. This will go on for the next 10,000 years....
Actually it will go on until someone offers "inconvertible" proof either way.
therein lies the difference. if i was ever presented with proof of a god, it would surely alter my beliefs. that's called being rational
your belief is fine. but if there was definitive, indisputable evidence the contrary and you STILL held onto the beliefs, that would be very backwardsIt's the same thing....just because I say that I won't change my mind doesn't make me archaic or backwards. It's who I am...It's what I believe. If I believe that an omnipotent all-powerful being created the universe and Man...I will never had a shred of evidence to offer you. Just because I don't have this evidence...you won't even consider my side is correct???
there is evidence of the big bang and evolution of species on earth. the only reason those theories exist is because of the evidence. the evidence came first, and the theories come after. that's how science works.Dude...like I've said a million times...you can believe whatever you want to. No concrete proof of the big bang, evolution, polkadot unicorns, Bigfoot, or God has ever been found. That doesn't mean one side is more correct or even plausible than the other.
well, if the math is correct, its no longer about "believing it's true."Some genius could spend his whole life and write a mathematical formula, prob a very simple 1st or 2nd order linear differential equation (because the simplest equations are normally the most accurate ones) on a chalk/whiteboard that he believes proves the existance of a big bang theory. 5 minutes later some other genius will come back and say he doesn't believe it to be true. This will go on for the next 10,000 years....
thats like somebody saying i don't believe that F=ma
that's being irrational
The big bang theory is just that...a theory. It's now like the law of gravity or the law of thermodynamics, or the conservation of mass and energy laws. People way smarter than me and you debate this "theory".
Look spurraider...I can tell your a bright individual. I'm not saying that I don't believe you because you're not qualified to discuss the topic. You're obviously very knowledgeable. And you're right...I, like you, took several chemistry classes (organic chemistry blows btw)...and I would consider myself to still be a neophyte.
Basically...people will always disagree. How bout this...we agree to disagree. No harm, no foul.....
i think you meant to say theory of gravity
Really dude....Really? Ok....omit the "law of gravity" part (Even though 99% of the world calls it a law including Newton). I guess we can get into a pissing contest about how objects with more mass attract objects with less mass now. I mean seriously are you that anal?
My entire point....It's called the Big Bang Theory....not the Big Bang Law.
newton's laws of gravity only apply to small masses, and fail when you get to stars and massive objects, so dont take the "laws of gravity" so literally
do you know what the difference is between a scientific law and scientific theory?
yeah...i've googled it before. That pretty much makes me an expert on the topic.......
so what is the difference between scientific law and scientific theory
Why are you asking me....I've already told you...I'm the expert on this topic. I've googled it before....
aaaaand we've reached THAT part of the discussion. arite man i'm out
Thank God....I'm tired of being talked to like a child. "What's the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory?" Every elementary school kid in the country learns this when they take their very first physical science class........
Nobody has ever proven anything about this, yep...theories. Most people on earth and who have lived on the planet believed in some God, religious beliefs being huge. Look at our money.....In God We Trust. It's....One Nation Under God. It's.....So Help Me God. While I don't buy the God of the Bible I do buy something/someone was responsibe as oppossed to.....BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Way too many complexities to have a.....BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....as the explanation.
It is funny watching how hard some try to sell what they believe especially since noboody is buying it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)