• 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!

Do you reject evolution?

Do you reject evolution?


  • Total voters
    114
Sporks.

See...I can say words that have nothing to do with what is quoted also.

Yes, well, anything could be anything. That doesn't constitute a debate. Also, sporks can be proven to exist scientifically.
 
As Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost biologists in the entire world, put it: "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." That is, which mutations occur is random, but which ones stick around is not. Understanding the ways in which evolution is random, and the ways in which it is not, is fundamental before anyone can actually start to critique it.
 
There are no laws of fact in science. For all intents and purposes, a theory in science is what a laymen would consider a fact. It seems as though you are engaging in a semantics argument on the word random. Evolution is as much of a fundamental law in biology as gravity is in physics.

Actually there are facts in science. For instance it is a fact that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton's Third Law of Motion. This is testable with verifiable results 100.00% of the time.

And what laymen consider as fact and theory is irrelevent to an actual fact vs theory. There is a difference between the two.

Also I'm not engaging in semantics. I'm engaging what is accurate vs what is inaccurate. To me when it comes to science there is a HUGE responsibility to state things accurately, otherwise misconceptions and lies result.
 
Yes, well, anything could be anything. That doesn't constitute a debate. Also, sporks can be proven to exist scientifically.

Can't have a debate when all you do is present one word posts. Particularly when that word has nothing to do with what was stated in the post you quoted.
 
To say it's a theory leaves open the possiblity of alternatives and improvements, which is important.

I'm sure that many considered Newton's theory of gravitation to be fact until Einstein came along. The respective theories mostly explain the same facts but do so with a very different underlying model and with very different implications for special situations.

Heisenburg's theory of how a fission bomb works was totally wrong but because of his stature in the German physics community at the time others were obliged to treat it as fact. Thus the Nazis failed to build an atomic bomb. Meanwhile, at Los Alamos some physicist you never heard of got it right and calculated the right amount of U[235] to pack into a bomb.

I see no value in reacting to critics by overstating the case.

When you really examine the situation where the Americans questioned Heisenberg's theory... Do you reach the conclusion that that is equivalent to creationists questioning the theory of evolution?
 
Sporks.

See...I can say words that have nothing to do with what is quoted also.

He was doing the thing like that history channel guy. It was relevant. Kindof.
 
Can't have a debate when all you do is present one word posts. Particularly when that word has nothing to do with what was stated in the post you quoted.

How am I to debate nihilism? "It could be anything" is not a legitimate position.
 
I entertain the notion intellectually, without necessarily accepting it in full.

:mrgreen:
 
Of course I don't reject that heritable traits in a population will change and diversify over time in response to the their environment. It's readily observable, from a lab to paying attention to the world.
 
When you really examine the situation where the Americans questioned Heisenberg's theory... Do you reach the conclusion that that is equivalent to creationists questioning the theory of evolution?

Creationism isn't a viable alternate theory.
 
It appears random, but it can be by design. You cannot prove otherwise.

There have been evolutionary dead-ends. Mistakes, blunders, whatever- creatures have evolved that had no chance for long-term success, for a variety of reasons. If that's part of the design process, maybe there's an element of randomness right there.
 
No, but I haven't given up on religion yet either.

I don't think it's an either-or situation. Evolution only means that God isn't into micro-management. It may just be that 'God' is only a term for what was 10 seconds before the Big Bang. It may be that 'God' is a term for a spark that can only be attained by evolution. It may be that 'God' is an observer like a particle physicist who knows that simply observing an experiment affects it's outcome.
 
Creationism isn't a viable alternate theory.

That is not a relevant point to make in any answer to the question posed. The question posed is meant to illustrate the extent that creationists question evolution, and compare that extent and character to the Americans who questioned Heisenberg. It is irrelevant whether creationists have an alternate theory.
 
That is not a relevant point to make in any answer to the question posed. The question posed is meant to illustrate the extent that creationists question evolution, and compare that extent and character to the Americans who questioned Heisenberg. It is irrelevant whether creationists have an alternate theory.

I don't think Americans were aware of Heisenberg's theory since it was wartime. That his word was law among the German physicists, and that this defeated their efforts to build a bomb, is the point.

Back at Los Alamos any joe schmoe could put forward his ideas and win the day with them if they were sound.

Enforcement of an orthodoxy is NEVER good science. Skepticism is ALWAYS the proper attitude.

Even with sacred cows like evolution. We should always be aware that a better idea might be put forward, but that ain't creationism.

Creationism advocates are religious laymen for the most part, not scientists. Most mainstream Christians don't think that scripture, poorly interpreted, trumps the physical realities of the real world.
 
No, I don't reject evolution. There's too much evidence in favor of it.
 
Yes or No?

No, I do not reject evolution.
I know enough to understand that I don't know anything for sure. And then there are retards who know everything...

stephen-hawking-gives-a-lecture-at-ku-leuven-university-in-2011-pic-getty-images-318303536-171086.jpg
 
What kind of ****ing idiot rejects Evolution? :lol:
 
Judging by what our liberal friends writes, evolution in the nature does not exist.
 
Creationism isn't a viable alternate theory.

It's not a theory at all, it's a totally discredited and debunked hypothesis.
 
Back
Top Bottom