• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Think Britain liberal? Guess again!

I'm a biologist, and if you believe that any serious scientists dispute evolution let me just tell you that you are sadly mistaken. Sure, there are some healthy disagreements over various nuances of evolutionary theory, and which animals evolved from which animals, but no one seriously disputes the general theory of evolution.

And Engimo is absolutely right. There is no fundamental difference between micro- and macroevolution.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm a biologist, and if you believe that any serious scientists dispute evolution let me just tell you that you are sadly mistaken. Sure, there are some healthy disagreements over various nuances of evolutionary theory, and which animals evolved from which animals, but no one seriously disputes the general theory of evolution.

And Engimo is absolutely right. There is no fundamental difference between micro- and macroevolution.

Thank you! This is what I keep telling people, and it's nice to hear it from someone actually in the field. What degree have you got, or what are you studying?
 
Kandahar said:
And Engimo is absolutely right. There is no fundamental difference between micro- and macroevolution.

lol Then why have I heard conjectures from people who are in the field? Just because you think there is no difference doesn't mean there aren't other people in the field who don't. What is your education level? I know people who are working on their Phd's at one of the leading research Universities in America who have expressed doubts about macroevolution. They are certainly, "reputable" people. No offense Kandahar but anybody on a website can say they are a biologist. I'll go more from what I know to be reputable sources. No offense though.
 
Engimo said:
Thank you! This is what I keep telling people, and it's nice to hear it from someone actually in the field. What degree have you got, or what are you studying?

I have a BS in biology. I'm working on my Master's.
 
George_Washington said:
lol Then why have I heard conjectures from people who are in the field? Just because you think there is no difference doesn't mean there aren't other people in the field who don't.

The differences are mainly in classification only. There's no FUNDAMENTAL difference between micro- and macroevolution.

George_Washington said:
What is your education level? I know people who are working on their Phd's at one of the leading research Universities in America who have expressed doubts about macroevolution. They are certainly, "reputable" people.

I'm working on my Master's right now. I've never encountered any science professor at the graduate, undergraduate, or high school level, or any of my fellow coworkers or students, who expressed any doubt at the main ideas of evolution.
 
George_Washington said:
lol Then why have I heard conjectures from people who are in the field? Just because you think there is no difference doesn't mean there aren't other people in the field who don't. What is your education level? I know people who are working on their Phd's at one of the leading research Universities in America who have expressed doubts about macroevolution. They are certainly, "reputable" people. No offense Kandahar but anybody on a website can say they are a biologist. I'll go more from what I know to be reputable sources. No offense though.

Oh, so your anecdotal evidence with a couple of Ph.D. students who express doubt about a concept that is not real overshadows the thousands of papers per year that are published in peer-reviewed journals that overwhelmingly support Evolution! Please. If you are sticking to your guns on the basis that "some smart guys you know are iffy about it" in the face of the overwhelming support of the scientific community, then you're foolish.

If you want to give your claims some credibility, show me some peer-reviewed papers that show any disproof or fundamental flaws in Evolutionary Theory. I could do just that to support Evolution.
 
George_Washington said:
Did we sleep through our own history class? William I was the first King of England from the Norman Line and had united the country like no one before his time. Remember the Battle of Hastings? If it wasn't for William, the Norse tribes, the old Danish Kings, and a slew of other European forces might have fully engufled England! But you know, it's alright. We have lousy interpretations of history over on this side of the Atlantic, too. Look at what your own Britannia Encyclopedia has to say about him:

You guys, Garza, this is just silly. The idea that William the Conquerer is not a heroic icon in British is as laughable as saying George Washington isn't one in our history. Maybe according to, "Fake Liberal Moronic Twisted History 101" but not to reputable history professors.

Hey, s'just a little joke. But I doubt that very many people are going to choose the greatest known French defeat of an English King in history as an event that defines British national pride.

George_Washington said:
Pretty soon you guys will say something, "Queen Elizabeth I was actually a man and I have proof..."

Behold...straight from the horses mouth so to speak...

Queen Elizabeth I said:
I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too;
So she was part man, at least.

128shot said:
Never the less, William was a bastard...

lol. Historical punnery galore...
 
Yeah Georgie boy I was just tickled that you called William the Conqueror British that's all. I don't know about "hero", as he gave all the land to foreigners, but he was an important part in our history.
 
Kandahar said:
I'm working on my Master's right now. I've never encountered any science professor at the graduate, undergraduate, or high school level, or any of my fellow coworkers or students, who expressed any doubt at the main ideas of evolution.

Well yeah, the main ideas of microevolution are solid in a scientific sense, I suppose. But what I meant was, I've heard a lot of conjecture about the details of it on the macro level. You say there's no difference between micro and macro evolution but I've heard so much conjecture about it that it leads me to question it. I probably don't know enough about it though to debate it in depth but I'll probably try to read up on it at some point, although it's hard when you've graduated college and are working full time. I am meeting with my friends from the local University tomarrow and I might try to discuss this issue with them. I probably accept microevolution but still, I am open minded to new scientific theories.

But anyway, the purpose of this thread wasn't to say that I think evolution is totally B.S. I was just trying to say that I think British people are returning to God.
 
Last edited:
George_Washington said:
If you think Britain is super liberal, think again. A recent poll by the BBC indicates that most Brits do not believe in evolution:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/26/104738.shtml?s=et

The poll would also suggest that 39% of Brits believe in creationism/intelligent design.

What is the cause of this? After two major wars, the rise of socialism, and the absence of nationalism, the British people are finally rebelling. They've had enough. They look at their country-they see the ancient castles, cathedrals, and lush landscape and they just feel like something is missing. They walk by Parliment and Buckingham Palace and recall their history and they need to remember. They need to feel a part of something. They yearn to be a community once again. The old British legends and heroes, from King Arthur to William the Conqueror, need to be revived in the hearts of Brits so that they will once again be whole. Indeed, the people of Britain are remembering the old days of Christianity and are returning to God.

Just out of curiosity why did you cite the rise of socialism as an example of englands supossed turning away from god? Thats a somewhat ironic statement because the socialist party that got into power after the war [the labour party] was founded by a wesleyan lay preacher who often said that the main inspiration behind his socialism was his christiality. Im in the same possition so to me it seams bizzare that many in the american christian right claim christiality and concervatism are somehow interchangeable.

Firstly because like the founder of the labour party i see socialism as quite biblical. As a christian i belive man is made in gods image, This being the case then gods image is being defilled by the war, inequality and greed. Christs mission is described in Isaiah 61-2 as "to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God" So the christ like way of dealing with this is to counter such a system.

Concepts like social justice , eglatarianism and shareing resources get far more coverage in the bible then homosexuality and idoltary. Indeed poverty is the second biggest theme in the old testement. Theres an intresting list of these biblical passages

Secondly because the christian right in is a bit of an anonomaly. South america is the opossite in that the politics of many countrys is dominated by the christian left due to the prominance of liberation theology [see wikipedia]. This has often turned out to be just as destructive as it can lead to the likes of salvador allende being endorsed by local bishops but it shows that the idea that christiality is inherrently concervative is not a universial one. Historically a number of notable left-wingers like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and the tolpuddle martyrs where christians.

I would dispute that the christian right is even that christian? Would jesus be more worried about homosexuals getting married than the starveing masses? Would Jesus cut taxes on the rich and not on the poor? Would jesus use chemical weapons?
 
Back
Top Bottom