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
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
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
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.
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.
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...
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
"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...
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
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