• 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
I sense an argument from incredulity in the near future.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Why does it have to be something?
Click to expand...

I think the universe is the creation of an infinite intelligence (i.e God). Just because Evolution exists, it doesn't mean there is no God.
 
Dillon said:
I think the universe is the creation of an infinite intelligence (i.e God). Just because Evolution exists, it doesn't mean there is no God.
Click to expand...

But why do you think this? Where is the proof to defend such a claim???
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
But why do you think this? Where is the proof to defend such a claim???
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how many things people believe that are not backed up by science? Look at all of the faith-based liberal policies. Unless someone is forcing you to believe their position it is probably better to follow this advice: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
 
There's no 'proof'. That's why it's called faith.
 
RiverDad said:
Do you have any idea how many things people believe that are not backed up by science? Look at all of the faith-based liberal policies. Unless someone is forcing you to believe their position it is probably better to follow this advice: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing but such as?
----

Dillon -

Evidence.jpg
 
scourge99 said:
the theory of evolution is based on a large body of evidence. for this whole conspiracy theory to work would require that a majority of biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, etc are all in on the conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Again...where am I suggesting all or even most of the evolutionary scientists are frauds? I think most are doing what they do...postulating, researching, postulating some more.
 
Dillon said:
I think the universe is the creation of an infinite intelligence (i.e God). Just because Evolution exists, it doesn't mean there is no God.
Click to expand...
That sounds very much like the very foolish and fantasy based position of most elected democrats! Can you IMAGINE the type of people that vote for them?
 
I didnt answer because there isnt a poll option for me.

First off though evolution exists PERIOD. This is not debatable, it has been proven and we have seen evidence of it over and over again. To deny this makes you blind, dishonest and bias on THIS subject or you are just an idiot.

That being said, when I say evolution Im just talking about its definition that exists.

If people want to debate on how much is random, to what extent it works, if god allows or controls it, if WE actually came from monkeys or adam & eve etc etc well have at it. That debate IS open.

BUT unless you want to dishonestly change the definition of the word, there is no debate to anybody honest, rational and smart on whether evolution exists at all. That debate was closed many moons ago.
 
VanceMack said:
Again...where am I suggesting all or even most of the evolutionary scientists are frauds? I think most are doing what they do...postulating, researching, postulating some more.
Click to expand...

So... you think that they're earnest... but wrong? By all means publish some evidence that contradicts the established theories.
 
Centrist77 said:
First off though evolution exists PERIOD. This is not debatable, it has been proven and we have seen evidence of it over and over again. To deny this makes you blind, dishonest and bias on THIS subject or you are just an idiot.
Click to expand...

Anyone who believes that the existence of evolution itself is a topic up for debate should ask themselves one simple question; where did my cute, fluffy, toy poodle come from?

The history of animal domestication alone provides enough evidence that evolution does exist to one extent or the other, and that singling out and promoting 'favorable' genes through the breeding process will shape the way an animal will think, look, and act over time.
 
David D. said:
Anyone who believes that the existence of evolution itself is a topic up for debate should ask themselves one simple question; where did my cute, fluffy, toy poodle come from?

The history of animal domestication alone provides enough evidence that evolution does exist to one extent or the other, and that singling out and promoting 'favorable' genes through the breeding process will shape the way an animal will think, look, and act over time.
Click to expand...

random, unguided evolution did not create your cute little poodle. so how did it happen??? intelligent design ;)
 
StillBallin75 said:
what force? The Force? The invisible hand? Natural selection?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the science based one that caused the big bang or the existence of all known matter in the cosmos?

I mean...come on...trying to pretend one fantasy is more credible than the other...its all pretty funny...right?
 
Paschendale said:
So... you think that they're earnest... but wrong? By all means publish some evidence that contradicts the established theories.
Click to expand...
You dont just keep changing the bar, you create some new starting point and want to say 'go'. Im not even sure what you are arguing. SOME researchers deliberately create flawed theory and offer fabricated evidence to support it. Some studies are legit...let the chips fall where they may. Some are guided to produce a deliberate result. Its the nature of science, research, people. In order to get fundingyou have to be able to show 'results'. There isnt a "Journal of Huh...That didnt at ALL Look Like What we Initially Thought it Did" although it would be kinda cool if there was.

Can I interest you in a piece of cloning research from famed South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk?

Not all. Definitely some.
 
VanceMack said:
You dont just keep changing the bar, you create some new starting point and want to say 'go'. Im not even sure what you are arguing. SOME researchers deliberately create flawed theory and offer fabricated evidence to support it. Some studies are legit...let the chips fall where they may. Some are guided to produce a deliberate result. Its the nature of science, research, people. In order to get fundingyou have to be able to show 'results'. There isnt a "Journal of Huh...That didnt at ALL Look Like What we Initially Thought it Did" although it would be kinda cool if there was.

Can I interest you in a piece of cloning research from famed South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk?

Not all. Definitely some.
Click to expand...

piltdown man anyone?
 
OscarB63 said:
piltdown man anyone?
Click to expand...
Im just sayin...

Its funny what some of the folks on this site do. They have this kneejerk need to rush to defend all instead of just allowing that SOME doesnt equal all. It happened with medicare fraud...uh UH! There may be a few but not THOUSANDS!!! OK...really? Mental Health Fraud...NO WAY! People wouldnt DO that! Uh...OK. Corrupt scientists...BULL****!!! NEVER!!! Really? Why...the field of science has some sort of purity test that ensures no one of questionable integrity can ever be a scientist? Dood...its...PEOPLE. People are flawed. NOT ALL...not even most...but some? Sure...you bet.
 
VanceMack said:
You dont just keep changing the bar, you create some new starting point and want to say 'go'. Im not even sure what you are arguing. SOME researchers deliberately create flawed theory and offer fabricated evidence to support it. Some studies are legit...let the chips fall where they may. Some are guided to produce a deliberate result. Its the nature of science, research, people. In order to get fundingyou have to be able to show 'results'. There isnt a "Journal of Huh...That didnt at ALL Look Like What we Initially Thought it Did" although it would be kinda cool if there was.

Can I interest you in a piece of cloning research from famed South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk?

Not all. Definitely some.
Click to expand...

I'm attempting to get you to actually say that you think the body of research that suggests evolution is false. But you won't commit to that. You just say that some scientists lie, while refusing the implications of that statement. Okay, which ones? Do you have proof for any individual theory being a deliberate fabrication, or do you just not trust smart people? You're using this notion that scientists lie to discredit their findings. But you're not making the connections yourself. Find some evidence and prove it false. Go ahead. Until you do the legwork, you don't get to call anyone else a liar.

Your position is that some scientists lie. I wouldn't doubt it. Everybody lies. But what I will doubt is that those lies go undiscovered. And there is certainly no concentrated effort to suppress the truth. You keep implying that such an effort exists. And you suggest that scientists are immoral people who lie in order to get paid. But what you keep refusing to say aloud is that you think enough scientists do this to affect the results that the scientific community puts forth. Until you actually say that, without equivocating, and show some evidence to back that claim up, you're just blowing hot air.

And based on your comment about "moving goalposts", I can only conclude that you either don't understand why what you're saying is complete and utter nonsense, or that you know it's bunk just as much as I do. You keep trying to implant the idea that scientists are all liars or incompetent without actually saying it. Either put up or shut up.
 
Paschendale said:
I'm attempting to get you to actually say that you think the body of research that suggests evolution is false. But you won't commit to that. You just say that some scientists lie, while refusing the implications of that statement. Okay, which ones? Do you have proof for any individual theory being a deliberate fabrication, or do you just not trust smart people? You're using this notion that scientists lie to discredit their findings. But you're not making the connections yourself. Find some evidence and prove it false. Go ahead. Until you do the legwork, you don't get to call anyone else a liar.

Your position is that some scientists lie. I wouldn't doubt it. Everybody lies. But what I will doubt is that those lies go undiscovered. And there is certainly no concentrated effort to suppress the truth. You keep implying that such an effort exists. And you suggest that scientists are immoral people who lie in order to get paid. But what you keep refusing to say aloud is that you think enough scientists do this to affect the results that the scientific community puts forth. Until you actually say that, without equivocating, and show some evidence to back that claim up, you're just blowing hot air.

And based on your comment about "moving goalposts", I can only conclude that you either don't understand why what you're saying is complete and utter nonsense, or that you know it's bunk just as much as I do. You keep trying to implant the idea that scientists are all liars or incompetent without actually saying it. Either put up or shut up.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by VanceMack

Me-Willful deception is commonly practiced. Even by those science minded folks. People frequently research things not to find the 'truth' but with the specific intent to prove a hypothesis. Mans gotta publish...right?
You-Are you suggesting that scientists fabricate results? The only way to prove a hypothesis is to find supporting evidence. Unless the evidence is false, then your premise is faulty. Go ahead, accuse the scientific community of just being a bunch of liars.
See what you did? You went from..."some scientists arent above creating a theory and then working to support it", to "go ahead accuse the scientific community of being a bunch of liars." Did I accuse "the scientific communtiy"? No. Did I state some research and even (gasp) researchers can be flawed, sometimes intentionally? Yes. I even gave you an example. Have I said all or even most evolutionary theory is corrupt? No. But off you go in your typical idiotic fashion creating a pretend argument then crowing in accomplishment when you have finally succeeded in biting your own tail. Good boy!!!
 
David D. said:
Anyone who believes that the existence of evolution itself is a topic up for debate should ask themselves one simple question; where did my cute, fluffy, toy poodle come from?

The history of animal domestication alone provides enough evidence that evolution does exist to one extent or the other, and that singling out and promoting 'favorable' genes through the breeding process will shape the way an animal will think, look, and act over time.
Click to expand...


Exactly, denying it exists at all just paints a person as blind, bias, dishonest and irrational.

Debate how far it goes, who controls it, whatever you want, but the fact remains is that it does exists and as already been proven.
 
Just something to chew on...

"On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

In surveys that asked about the behavior of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.

In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers. This suggests that either the latter are more open and honest in their answers or that frauds and bias are more frequent in their fields. If you choose the latter interpretation, it may be due to fears that only government sponsored scientists have a motivation to be ethical and industry is distorting scientific evidence to promote commercial treatments and drugs.

A meta analysis of how honestly scientists think scientists in other disciplines or in the private sector behave in regard to ethical conduct would be interesting."
Science 2.0 - ® The world's best scientists, the Internet's smartest readers.
 
VanceMack said:
Just something to chew on...

"On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

In surveys that asked about the behavior of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.

In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers. This suggests that either the latter are more open and honest in their answers or that frauds and bias are more frequent in their fields. If you choose the latter interpretation, it may be due to fears that only government sponsored scientists have a motivation to be ethical and industry is distorting scientific evidence to promote commercial treatments and drugs.

A meta analysis of how honestly scientists think scientists in other disciplines or in the private sector behave in regard to ethical conduct would be interesting."
Science 2.0 - ® The world's best scientists, the Internet's smartest readers.
Click to expand...

and I know I've never fudged the truth on a Soldier's NCOER in order to improve his chances of getting promoted ;)
 
OscarB63 said:
and I know I've never fudged the truth on a Soldier's NCOER in order to improve his chances of getting promoted ;)
Click to expand...
no one claims all scientists are saints or are immune to error. but science continues to be the most consistant and reliable means to uncover truth about reality. one reason is because science doesnt rely on a single or small set of data points. science is cumulative. it is self correcting as new data becomes available.

its incredibly amusing when people such as yourself spend so much time in a vain effort to discredit evolution by criticising science yet have so much confidence that your computer, car, airplanes, cell phones, and vaccines work as intended. and when you get ill or injured you no doubt seek medical help at a hospital. all of which are products of the exact same science you so vehemently criticize.

its obvious that your criticism of evolution is not about any honest doubt in the veracity of science but merely a psychological coping mechanism used to deal with your religious beliefs that are in conflict with certain aspects of science.
 
VanceMack said:
....." Did I accuse "the scientific communtiy"? No. Did I state some research and even (gasp) researchers can be flawed, sometimes intentionally? Yes. I even gave you an example. Have I said all or even most evolutionary theory is corrupt? No. But off you go in your typical idiotic fashion creating a pretend argument then crowing in accomplishment when you have finally succeeded in biting your own tail. Good boy!!!
Click to expand...
So what is your belief? You haven't said Nor, Conspicuoulsy, Voted in the Poll! Not even an "I don't know".

What are you doing in this string?
You say you're not accusing the scientific community- but you ARE doing just that by continually insinuating members of it...
and thereby attempting to, if even in a minor way, Cast doubt on Evolution.

If your only point is 2% of every profession stinks, you have no germaine point to this string.
It's premise is NOT "all scientists are perfect".
It's about the Fact of evolution and 150 years of evolution Science.

(Disclaimer, I haven't read much of the middle of this string)
 
Last edited:
I think that the majority of scientists strive to produce valid and reliable information.

The world would be in a hell of a mess if the blueprint, so-to-speak, used for research and discovery was constantly corrupted and scientist were self-will-run-riot. The same fundamental process in scientific research is pretty much the same regardless of the discipline. If that wasn't so...and clearly evident, we'd see very little progress in so many areas of our lives.

(1) Science consists of posting testable, falsifiable hypotheses;

(2) Making predictions about what is not yet known;

(3) Performing critical experiments or observations that can disprove certain alternative hypotheses and lend credence to others;

(4) Seeking explanations in natural rather than supernatural causes;

(5) Trying to falsify hypotheses rather than to prove them;

(6) Remaining skeptical until independent investigators are able to corroborate new claims;

(7) And subjecting one's ideas and data to the merciless criticism of other scientists.

Nothing is set in concrete in science. The closest thing to unchanging laws are mostly all mathematical. But it's possible that one day there might be new discoveries that will lead to mathematic laws.

What in knowledge or life is perfect? There's bad seeds in all walks of life. We would still be living in the dark ages if it weren't for science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom