• 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
Manc Skipper said:
A singularity is not "nothingness", and the background hiss between stations on your radio is evidence.
Click to expand...

so where did this supposed singularity come from? and radio static is hardly evidence for the existance of a billions year old singularity.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
which one do you believe? i dont believe either.

i dont claim to KNOW things i dont and i dont believe things without justification.
Click to expand...


so what do you believe?
 
OscarB63 said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

Except for one thing.. applying the universe came from nothing to mankinds level of scientific understanding of it is incorrect.. the universe came from a "we do not know thing".

Science does not have any way of knowing what was before the singularity, or whether something spawned this or not.. we do not even know precisely what the singularity was - yet alone what may or may not have been there before it, but the singularity itself was not "nothing"

The universe came from nothing argument is a straw man, and not an accurate reflection of the scientific claims made.
 
Manc Skipper said:
A singularity is not "nothingness", and the background hiss between stations on your radio is evidence.
Click to expand...

Not so fast. There's actually more than one potential explanation for that background radiation.

BB top 30 problems, scroll down to number two on the list. I found this site while googling and doing a little research, and it's surprisingly rather well-sourced.

I've always been somewhat skeptical of the BBT (and for those who can't read or who like to jump to conclusions: i said skeptical, not doubtful). I don't disbelieve the theory, I simply don't think that the theory rests upon as solid a foundation as many folks seem to think. Nevertheless, I do realize it's the most comprehensive theory that explains the universe's existence to date.

Bottom line, I still think the universe is too vast and mysterious for us to fully understand at this point in time.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
so what do you believe?
Click to expand...
about what? i know/believe the universe as we know it arose from the big bang because there is significant and compelling evidence of this. how or why the big bang occurred, i dont know.

i dont know in the same way i dont know if the number of people who sneezed between 1950 and 1975 is odd or even. perhaps one day i will know or have justification to believe but until that day it is folly to claim to know or believe one way or another.
 
scourge99 said:
about what? i know/believe the universe as we know it arose from the big bang because there is significant and compelling evidence of this. how or why the big bang occurred, i dont know.

i dont know in the same way i dont know if the number of people who sneezed between 1950 and 1975 is odd or even. perhaps one day i will know or have justification to believe but until that day it is folly to claim to know or believe one way or another.
Click to expand...

We've already discussed this. There is a difference between knowing and believing. The only way you can possibly KNOW that the universe arose from the big bang is if you had a time machine and traveled back 10-20 billion years.
 
Damn it, we need a time machine.
 
OscarB63 said:
so where did this supposed singularity come from? and radio static is hardly evidence for the existance of a billions year old singularity.
Click to expand...

There are partial models that suggest that absolute nothingness behaves in exactly such a way that singularities appear in it. I don't know much about the notion, but I know it is not an established theory.
 
Dezaad said:
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.
Click to expand...

So how many people do you think take the various versions of deity based creation literally (I am including all the creation stories that are found in the various religions)?

Dezaad said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, what do you think the current theory is on how matter was formed? What supporting evidence is there? I agree that no phenomenon needs a "God" or "Gods" - the explanations for the unknown are a matter of faith or lack of faith in some kind of "spiritual" force that is beyond our understanding

Dezaad said:
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.
Click to expand...

O.K. ; what evidence do we have (I am a little familiar with the hypotheses, but need a refresher)?

Dezaad said:
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.
Click to expand...

While science has yet been able to support evidence of some kind of "spiritual" force, I am wondering whether the lack of ability to scientifically measure such a force precludes the existence of such a force? Is it possible that what people believe to be "spiritual" is in fact an incomprehensible force "embedded"/"a part of" the physical phenomena that we measure scientifically?

Dezaad said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am wondering what evidence you have that supports the idea that all humans instinctually know there is no "spiritual" force that exists?
 
Tucker Case said:
Because they are different phenomena
Click to expand...

Tucker..Your succinct little post (as opposed to my earlier more verbose response to the same post) prompted a line of thought which compels me to revisit this again to substitute the terms to show the flaws in this argument:

Wake said:
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?
Click to expand...

Science hasn't explained how matter "came to be". If science can't pinpoint how, then why should I care for their suppositions about gravity?

This is basically the same question, - why should I believe a theory that describes the behavior of something when I do not know how that something came to be?
 
scourge99 said:
about what? i know/believe the universe as we know it arose from the big bang because there is significant and compelling evidence of this. how or why the big bang occurred, i dont know. .
Click to expand...

bold: and God said, "let there be light" ;)
 
Wake said:
Those would be your words, not mine.
Click to expand...

It's a logical extension of what you said. If we can discount one theory because it does not cover something completely different(hint: abiogenisis and evolution are two entirely different things), then we should throw out all science because there are things we still do not know.
 
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...

Evolution does not address how life came to be in any way. It is not in any way part of the theory. Why is this confusing to you?
 
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...

We actually have pretty good ideas on all those. However, that has jack **** to do with evolution. This does seem to be a pattern here.
 
Wake said:
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.
Click to expand...

The theories on all of those are based on concrete reasoning and examination of the evidence. The fact you are ignorant of those theories does not change the fact that they do exist and in some cases are fairly robust.
 
Wake said:
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?
Click to expand...

I understand that you wrote this before my last reply to you, but I would just like to point out that yes, it has come up with potential explanations for how life may have arisen.

But the greater point is, if you think that science can't explain one thing, so therefore it somehow justifies you ignoring everything else that science has attempted to explain, then that really only leads you on a path towards ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
The theories on all of those are based on concrete reasoning and examination of the evidence. The fact you are ignorant of those theories does not change the fact that they do exist and in some cases are fairly robust.
Click to expand...
but scientists are just guessing. its only a theory. it could be wrong! you just have faith in science and i have faith in god!

:roll:
 
StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you are being dishonest if you assume or submit that MOST that believe in evolution are learned folk. Some? Sure...even many. But all? Heck...follow this thread and it is easy to see that many have their own 'belief' in science...and thats all good...really. But if you cant explain the existence of all matter you are left with "I believe...because...I think...and...Im not really sure...and I dont really know..." The origins of a mere cup of dirt defies our accumulated 'knowledge'. Lots of theory tho...
 
Redress said:
The theories on all of those are based on concrete reasoning and examination of the evidence. The fact you are ignorant of those theories does not change the fact that they do exist and in some cases are fairly robust.
Click to expand...
No doubt. For some. Othersare just as blind and moronic about their belief in 'science' as the religious folk they hold in such low regard.
 
VanceMack said:
No doubt. For some. Othersare just as blind and moronic about their belief in 'science' as the religious folk they hold in such low regard.
Click to expand...

That is a separate discussion, but the two are based around different ideas. Science is based on analyzing observations. Religion is designed around faith. If a theory is based around faith and not observation, then it is not scientific.
 
Redress said:
That is a separate discussion, but the two are based around different ideas. Science is based on analyzing observations. Religion is designed around faith. If a theory is based around faith and not observation, then it is not scientific.
Click to expand...
You get that I'm agreeing with you, right? I suspect most folk here that would argue the science based model have fairly sound reasoning for their 'belief'. At the end of the day...its still a belief.
 
VanceMack said:
You get that I'm agreeing with you, right? I suspect most folk here that would argue the science based model have fairly sound reasoning for their 'belief'. At the end of the day...its still a belief.
Click to expand...

and some people care whether their beliefs are true. there are ways to do that such as with reason and evidence.

do you care whether your beliefs about evolution are true? how do you justify them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom