• 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!

Evolution

Does evolution happen


  • Total voters
    70
Science hasn't explained how life "came to be". If science can't pinpoint how, then why should I care for their suppositions about evolution?

Or any other supposition either really. Since we don't know how life began, we should stop using all technology.
 
Or any other supposition either really. Since we don't know how life began, we should stop using all technology.

Those would be your words, not mine.
 
Science hasn't explained how life "came to be". If science can't pinpoint how, then why should I care for their suppositions about evolution?

Because evolution is in no way dependent on how life got to be here, it only matters that life is here.

Let me do a quick search of my post history, I know I have one that would fit here:

evolution has zero dependency on how life came about, it just deals with what we have observed of what has happened with life after it was established. Regardless of if it was God, a bolt of lightening in a mud puddle, a hydrothermal vent, or Lisa Simpsons science experiment. It matters not how life gets here from an evolutionary standpoint. It only matters that life IS here.

hmm go figure it was you I responded to with my earlier post I quoted above as well.
 
Because evolution is in no way dependent on how life got to be here, it only matters that life is here.

Let me do a quick search of my post history, I know I have one that would fit here:



hmm go figure it was you I responded to with my earlier post I quoted above as well.

So evolution and evolutionists make absolutely no guesses or theories on hw life and creation came to be? Boy, I'm really getting crossed signals frm those I debated n a different forum.

I think there are certain adaptions that animals make, but I don't believe that humans came from animals. The "missing link" has never been found.

I don't believe in evolution because it clashes with my religion.
 
What .. are you saying that science tries to explain how we were evolved? Why yes, of course it does (at least the majority of science does); they go by the evidence given and make the most reasonable explanation for the evidence.

I never purported that science explains how things began in terms of how initial matter was created. Any theories on this are currently speculation. What is well supported is that once life was created (in is most microscopic form) the wheels were set into motion and natural selection took over, resulting in the organisms we see living on earth today.

The point of my post was that somehow, these evolution vs. creationism posts inevitably end up in arguments over whether or not a "deity" exists when it need to be that way. Evolution does not rule out the possibility of a "deity" - aka some force that is beyond our understanding - this is all I was saying

I also mentioned that science never claims to have proven anything as true; instead, hypothesis are made and tested and they either support theories or not; as of now, the theory of evolution is a well supported one

Does this make sense?

The reason this happens is that, historically - before we had science to explain things, God was credited with the creation of mankind during the seven days of the creation account. When science started expelling things with naturalistic explanations, it became obvious that all of creation might eventually be explained by naturalistic explanations.

There are still gaps in 'creation' where people of faith can tuck their various God's, but those gaps are getting fewer and smaller.The process of the formation of elements doesn't need a god. The process of the formation of galaxies, stars and planets doesn't need a god. The formation of land and water doesn't need a god. The formation of mankind, plants and animals doesn't need a god.

If we ever have evidence of a naturalistic explanation of the inception of the universe and an explanation for abiogenesis, the gaps for god to fill in will be insignificant indeed. People are already tracking the folly of past defaulting to god explanations through simple incredulity. When science has found non god explanations for things, the understanding has led to great practical benefits for mankind. If people had not dared to fill in the gaps with something other than god, those benefits would be a very long time coming, yet.

If explanations are found, God would be reduced to a sort of interloper coming along despite the formation of the universe and all that it contains happening without him. And serving what purpose exactly? If everything that happens has a naturalistic explanation, he never influences the world at all. What good would he be? God may still exist in such an eventuality, but his existence would be irrelevant.

They all instinctively know this. And thus the resistance to science through the ages, and the reason why science and religion will eventually increasingly be in conflict.
 
Ambiguous or misleading use of the word "random" in the poll.
The more appropriate choice is higher power caused, or not-higher-power caused.

Labeling not-higher-power caused as "random" is rife with issues.
 
So evolution and evolutionists make absolutely no guesses or theories on hw life and creation came to be? Boy, I'm really getting crossed signals frm those I debated n a different forum.

I think there are certain adaptions that animals make, but I don't believe that humans came from animals. The "missing link" has never been found.

I don't believe in evolution because it clashes with my religion.

Science does make guesses, and has some evidence on how life came to be. Imagine for a moment that they discover that one of the guesses is correct. What would that mean?
 
Science does make guesses, and has some evidence on how life came to be. Imagine for a moment that they discover that one of the guesses is correct. What would that mean?

Imagine your surprise if they discover a dragon's fossil.

If they find hardcore, absolutely concrete evidence, then that is something to be reckoned with.

There was a quote I once read that was, I think, this: "Science doesn't prove; it probes." I can't remember who said that but it makes me question everything.
 
Ambiguous or misleading use of the word "random" in the poll.
The more appropriate choice is higher power caused, or not-higher-power caused.

Labeling not-higher-power caused as "random" is rife with issues.

Try and be precise around here and see where that gets you. Not where you would reasonably expect, I can assure you.
 
And their ignorance means what? Can you provide some examples or is this the usual vague claim?
I think his point was stated by others as well...the irony of people that 'believe' in something they dont really know or understand being critical of others that 'believe' in something they dont really know or understand.
 
I think his point was stated by others as well...the irony of people that 'believe' in something they dont really know or understand being critical of others that 'believe' in something they dont really know or understand.

This... yes.

I am often ridiculed for believing in God, yet when I question them about how we, life, the earth, the moon, and everything came to be, they are left silent.
 
Imagine your surprise if they discover a dragon's fossil.

If they find hardcore, absolutely concrete evidence, then that is something to be reckoned with.

There was a quote I once read that was, I think, this: "Science doesn't prove; it probes." I can't remember who said that but it makes me question everything.

I love imagining such things as them finding dragon bones with evidence that they warmed their eggs with fire or something! That would be truly awesome.
 
So evolution and evolutionists make absolutely no guesses or theories on hw life and creation came to be? Boy, I'm really getting crossed signals frm those I debated n a different forum.

I think there are certain adaptions that animals make, but I don't believe that humans came from animals. The "missing link" has never been found.

I don't believe in evolution because it clashes with my religion.

Yes, they do make guesses, these are called "hypothesis". Then they test the hypothesis, when these guesses accurately predict things and there is support through testing that the guesses were right then they ultimately become theories. which are guesses that have then been substantiated and are no longer guesses, but rather based on evidence observation prediction and testing.


Humans ARE animals.. or do you also deny that they are mammals, primates, and vertebrates as well? We have hair on our bodies, mammary glands, five digit hands and feet and a backbone, we meet all of the criteria for the above classifications. You cannot be any of these UNLESS you are an animal. * this is just a rough outline of the basics, the traits that we have that define each of these classifications run much deeper and more detailed than that.

If you do not believe in evolution because it clashes with your religion, so be it, that is your prerogative, don't. Your faith and your desire to not accept it or the evidence for it does not change the immense level of testing, predicting, scrutiny, criticism that it has withstood - all of which substantiates and bolsters the solidity of the theory.

Genetics could have easily disproven the entire thing if the discoveries made in this new field did not match what was predicted.. it did no such thing, it only solidified that which was very solid to begin with even more.
 
Last edited:
This... yes.

I am often ridiculed for believing in God, yet when I question them about how we, life, the earth, the moon, and everything came to be, they are left silent.

Crack open a biology or astronomy textbook. For scientific theories that are just theories and remain unproven, I take everything I read with a grain of salt, but to say that "they are left silent" means either that you're talking to idiots, or that you're being dishonest. There are scientific explanations out there for how all of these things came into being. Please do a little of your own research.
 
This... yes.

I am often ridiculed for believing in God, yet when I question them about how we, life, the earth, the moon, and everything came to be, they are left silent.

And when they ask you how your god came to be, are you any less silent? Sure, you say that he always existed, but do you have any more evidence that he always existed than they have for their guesses about the big bang and abiogenesis?
 
Crack open a biology or astronomy textbook. For scientific theories that are just theories and remain unproven, I take everything I read with a grain of salt, but to say that "they are left silent" means either you're talking to idiots, or that you're being dishonest.

I do take them with a grain of salt.

I'm being figurative with "they are left silent". Means they have no concrete reasoning. An example would be me asking you how we, life, earth, and moon came to be.
 
And when they ask you how your god came to be, are you any less silent? Sure, you say that he always existed, but do you have any more evidence that he always existed than they have for their guesses about the big bang and abiogenesis?

Oh I admit I can't prove or explain scientifically how God came to be. I know that. Just, when they ridicule me, I ask the equivalent on how creation came to be and they're left with suppositions, assumptions, etc.
 
I think his point was stated by others as well...the irony of people that 'believe' in something they dont really know or understand being critical of others that 'believe' in something they dont really know or understand.

there is a monumental gap seperating beliefs based on
1) evidence + reason
2) credulity (perhaps gullibility) to holy book tales and unverifiable testimony, and emotions.
 
I do take them with a grain of salt.

I'm being figurative with "they are left silent". Means they have no concrete reasoning. An example would be me asking you how we, life, earth, and moon came to be.

Alright, if you want answers, stop talking to random people and just do like I said, open a bio or astronomy textbook. Or go on wikipedia. It's a very useful resource. You'll find plenty of "concrete reasoning."

Here's one, for starters:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Alright, if you want answers, stop talking to random people and just do like I said, open a bio or astronomy textbook. Or go on wikipedia. It's a very useful resource.

Here's one, for starters:

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suppose I'll get some newer books.

Problem. Some don't mesh up; meaning they differe slightly in each case I've read so far. Meh, I'll have to make up my own mind on their beliefs.
 
there is a monumental gap seperating beliefs based on
1) evidence + reason
2) credulity (perhaps gullibility) to holy book tales and unverifiable testimony, and emotions.

yeah... there is a monumental difference in believing that God created the universe out of nothingness and in believing that the universe just happened to spring into being out of nothingness. there is no evidence for either one. ;)
 
I suppose I'll get some newer books.

Problem. Some don't mesh up; meaning they differe slightly in each case I've read so far. Meh, I'll have to make up my own mind on their beliefs.

Science doesn't hold all of the answers, but it does make an honest attempt at finding out more. All I'm saying is that if you want to know more about someone else's beliefs, the answers are out there if only you look for them.
 
A singularity is not "nothingness", and the background hiss between stations on your radio is evidence.
 
Oh I admit I can't prove or explain scientifically how God came to be. I know that. Just, when they ridicule me, I ask the equivalent on how creation came to be and they're left with suppositions, assumptions, etc.

But they probably don't care how it all came to be, in the sense that you are thinking. They probably don't need to know an alternate explanation is proven in order to believe that acceptance of another completely unsubstantiated explanation is foolish.

Let me be clear: I don't believe in the big bang, because it is not substantiated enough yet. I don't have an accepted explanation for the inception of the universe. But I also know that believing the completely unsubstantiated claim that god created the universe is even more foolish than accepting the big bang would be, because it has zero evidence, while the big bang has at least some.
 
yeah... there is a monumental difference in believing that God created the universe out of nothingness and in believing that the universe just happened to spring into being out of nothingness. there is no evidence for either one. ;)
which one do you believe? i dont believe either.

i dont claim to KNOW things i dont and i dont believe things without justification.
 
Back
Top Bottom