The debate "Beliefs in Religion and Beliefs in Scientific evolution can coexist" was started by
May 31, 2016, 7:28 pm.
25 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
SwaggerPoptart posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 16 arguments, TZW posted 9 arguments to the agreers part.
psychorejection posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
SwaggerPoptart, ototoxic, sabrina, josh_rocks, Bodaciouslady16, Nemiroff, TZW, jberry, JLabang123, historybuff, rawblood, Schnuupi, EddyCamacho, wdz, moneybagboyz and 10 visitors agree.
psychorejection, SueAnnMohr, JGM, bruff21 and 6 visitors disagree.
Nemiroff I never claimed I won, you did. Buff I never said science is always wrong you just failed to read what I was saying that it isn't always right. If you think it is, read a HISTORY book and get BUFFed up on how it has been wrong before.
if it is a scientific then it is proven. we do know. we do have facts. you are just intentionally avoiding the facts to protect your own biased views.
I love self declared champions.
You're just upset because I answered your question easily now you feel offended lol. Face the facts, the real facts, no one knows stop acting like one does.
it explains a lot of the evidence, makes some logical sense. is that it? you don't know what science even is don't you.
heck, I got a theory for you. dark energy is the flip side of gravity. in absence of mass, objects repel.
is this magically now science? lol.
any ESTABLISHED theories that have been disproven?
the scientific standards haven't changed since their creation. 400 years institutionally.
I'm not retyping everything that I said earlier buff.
Summarized: relgion nor science is correct 100% of the time the sooner people realize that the better off we will be. Neither side is wrong neither side is right. Both sides should grow together and accept one another.
as we have pointed out many many times. gravity is a theory. it is proven beyond any doubt but still a scientific theory.
Yes they had the standards of their time. Times change and things change which is what I'm stating the whole time. That theories are not 100% regardless what they are backed on people disprove them all the time, and to say religion has no backing either while claiming science has it fully? That's ignorance.
were any of these "theories" accepted by any scientific standard?
or did someone just proclaim a "theory" as you yourself defined it. "a guess"
classified by who?
the flat earth theory was an assumption by uneducated people, meanwhile learned people knew the earth was round since the time of the ancient greeks.
Transmutation of species, maternal impressions, Caloric Theory, emitter theory, balance of nature, ptolemaic theory. Keep going?
Oh here's a complete obvious one, The Flat Earth Theory which is classified as a "scientific theory"
can you name a few established theories that were disproven? since there were so many.
No lol, they disprove them all the time. it has the same backing as religion. It's wrote down they say this is how it is. Time passes and they say oh never mind we were wrong MOST of the time, just like religion.
If you can convince people what they see is all that can be seen then you're golden, Because they'll laugh in your face of an explanation that ignores the bigger picture. So if you only side with one you are blind to the bigger picture.
they may not be the whole truth, but they are nothing but the truth.
there is missing information. but the key elements are established beyond doubt. they are fact.
biblical references can be proven, but others cannot. others still are clearly wrong.
I don't get mad, but I do point out that you are simply picking which facts you want to hear, and ignoring the rest.
science is tested, and retested. and that gives me faith. also, it works, and even those who decry it enjoy its benefits daily.
No flaws? are you sure that is correct?
quick question. in grammar, what part of speech is "scientific" in "scientific theory"
you have a masters you said, so this should be easy.
scientific theory is its own term with a distinct meaning.
You do know those exist right?
it is a theory as you describe it, at first.
then it is tested, scrutinized, made sure that it answers all observations and has no flaws. then it upgrades to scientific theory.
As soon as anyone says anything about discrediting science you both get upset about it, or when biblical references can be proven. It's obvious you two have no tolerance for religion. The both should and must coexist for the world to move forward. With 100% honesty I can say the world will not be a better place if the two cannot coexist. You are upholding yourselves to a standard that doesn't allow this to exist.
Fill in the blank with the definition of the word that fills it spot. This quiz is worth 10 points.
That phrased in a more suitable manner? Or are you still confused?
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
it was already posted, sorry, I thought you were capable of reading.
I literally copy and pasted it from this thread.
Why do you agree yet how you speak says disagree? Perhaps lying? Or are you unsure?
Scientific what? finish the phrase with the definition of the word that's missing.
You two are intolerant as a racist, and as ignorant as a republican.
buff repeatedly used the term "scientific theory." your layman's, common usage "theory" has nothing to do with the "scientific theories" being discussed here.
he even posted the relevant definition and your still playing dumb...
Theory is the key word, buff. Fabricating words to improve your stance again because you are intolerant I see. It's okay that's why ignorance will always exist because people, (or as you say religion is the only thing that does this), but buff will not change just ignore everything that is posed against him.
that's what he said. you looked up the wrong word.
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." So science very much does have facts in its definition. If it isn't based on provable facts then it is not part of accepted science.
Incorrect that's Merriam-Webster's definition of theory, not scientific theory.
you have looked up the wrong definition. the definition you are looking for is a scientific theory. it is a completely different definition. since you always forget tzw.
The common denominator in a theory is another theory just as the common denominator in a religious story is a religious story.
Theory - an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.
Here since you always forget buff
since scientific theories require large amounts of evidence in order to be classified as a theory that is categorically false. science is based on provable facts. religion is based on unprovable stories.
The desperate belief part to be exact.
Psycho, that type of response creates animosity and hinders progression in allowing the two to coexist. Science nor religion has all the answers nor all these "truths" as you say. Science goes off theories and relgion goes off beliefs which neither one has facts in its definition.
People with disparate beliefs exist sure. however scientific facts are alone in that they are the only real truth.
The best answer to the question is that it depends on the religion. Some do some don't.
But in general, is it possible for any religion to coexist with the concept of evolution? I personally live in a Mormon community where several people have been taught about evolution, but there are those who refuse to accept the lessons in class because they say it is impossible for evolution to be real.
that depends on what those religious beliefs are. there are alot of religious groups that can't accept both.