• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Sarah Palin critical of the Pope for not being enough of an extremist nutjob

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Originally posted by masonryan View Post
    She is accused of being stupid because she doesn't buy evolution. The people who make such accusations strangely think they are being intelligent in making such crass generalisations.

    Funny how they supposedly hate religion due to its unchanging pillars, yet won't have a word said against their evolution theories.
    You just don't get it, evolution is a fact! It has been proven beyond any doubt. You may as well start arguing that the earth is flat. That you even try and argue against it shows that you are uneducated and have difficulty with logic and rational thought, or you are a troll sockie

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by russell View Post
      You just don't get it, evolution is a fact! It has been proven beyond any doubt. You may as well start arguing that the earth is flat. That you even try and argue against it shows that you are uneducated and have difficulty with logic and rational thought, or you are a troll sockie

      No, you need to leave at least a tiny opening for doubt. I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins but I agree with him that you should keep an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out.
      And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by Dominic Connor View Post
        Mrs. Palin is a professional politician in America, a country where evolution is a minority belief and amongst activists in her party a belief that is rather unpopular.
        Who ever said that agents or journalists make tulip up all the time rather than researching facts?

        Yes, there is a high level of belief in Creationism, but belief in evolution in the US is a majority belief.

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
          No, you need to leave at least a tiny opening for doubt. I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins but I agree with him that you should keep an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out.
          He would agree that evolution is fact though, I think he talks about tiny opening to doubt in regards belief in some kind of God.

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by Ticktock View Post
            Who ever said that agents or journalists make tulip up all the time rather than researching facts?

            Yes, there is a high level of belief in Creationism, but belief in evolution in the US is a majority belief.
            I think Mr Connor believes the US is made up of the tea party and the south

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by masonryan View Post
              It's not obvious that we descend from pondscum (but maybe you do) nor that life 'just happened'.
              "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
              - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by russell View Post
                He would agree that evolution is fact though, I think he talks about tiny opening to doubt in regards belief in some kind of God.
                Well no, I think he allows for doubt in pretty much anything, just not a lot of doubt about evolution; there's no need for an epistemological debate about it because as far as I'm concerned, yes, evolution is fact if you're able to see 'fact' as something with a 99.999 percent chance of being true and I think that's how Richard Dawkins sees it. That tiny margin for doubt offers the opportunity for competing theories that may be wrong, but may in some strange way offer new insights, and that's necessary for science.
                And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                Comment


                  #68
                  Honestly, small minded arguments about 6,000 years ago or 4billion years, made by small minded people.

                  There are REALLY BIG philosophical and religious questions going on RIGHT NOW that are stumping cosmologists, philosophers and the religious.

                  What was there BEFORE the Big Bang and what triggered 'something' out of 'nothing'?

                  Curious About Astronomy: What was there before the Big Bang and what is there outside of our universe?

                  What Happened Before the Big Bang? The New Philosophy of Cosmology - Ross Andersen - The Atlantic

                  Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                  Come on people - everyone needs to up their game.
                  "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
                  - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by masonryan View Post
                    OH really, so where would people get their morals from to serve as a foundation for Law?
                    Morality has no dependency on religion nor does law. Indeed western law which is based on Roman law was first codified in aprox 450 BCE with no recourse to any religion.
                    But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the younger

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by Gibbon View Post
                      Morality has no dependency on religion nor does law. Indeed western law which is based on Roman law was first codified in aprox 450 BCE with no recourse to any religion.
                      Please don't pollute the discussion with facts. Honestly, tut tut...
                      And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X