• 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 Believe in Creationism?

Do You Belive In Creationsm?

  • Yes I do - The Biblical version

    Votes: 2 3.7%

  • Yes I do - "Intelligent Design" - God created everything

    Votes: 8 14.8%

  • No - I believe in the Theory of Evolution (Darwinism)

    Votes: 35 64.8%

  • None of the above - please explain

    Votes: 9 16.7%
  • Total voters
    54
Maximus Zeebra said:
No.. I am leaving the western world.. I will spend some time in the military. and just hie around the Eurasian continent to get away from all the idiocy, I cant stand it any more, it sickens me deeply.
Click to expand...
Riddance, good.
 
Cephus said:
No, it is a fact. It is undenable, given the overwhelming weight of evidence, that life evolves.
Click to expand...
Evolution is derived from inference.
As with anything derived from interence, it is most certainly deniable, as it is perfectly possible for someone to, today, discover evidence that utterly disporves it.
 
Goobieman said:
Evolution is derived from inference.
As with anything derived from interence, it is most certainly deniable, as it is perfectly possible for someone to, today, discover evidence that utterly disporves it.
Click to expand...
You could say that about anything. If we discovered evidence disproved gravity, we would alter the theory and law of gravity accordingly.
 
EgoffTib said:
You could say that about anything.
Click to expand...
Anything dervived from inductive reasoning, yes.

Point is, this means evolution is not a fact. It is a theory that fits the information that is currently available.

If it were a fact, then there could be no infromation that would or could refute it.
 
Goobieman said:
Anything dervived from inductive reasoning, yes.

Point is, this means evolution is not a fact. It is a theory that fits the information that is currently available.

If it were a fact, then there could be no infromation that would or could refute it.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Something only becomes a fact because we, as a society, deem it to be so. For example, we need oxygen to survive. If, during the course of our rest one night, we discover that all oxygen is gone and we still breath effectively, we would have rendered a fact obsolete.
 
Goobieman said:
If it were a fact, then there could be no infromation that would or could refute it.
Click to expand...

But it may, in fact, be a fact.

Right now there is no refuting evidence, although it may hypothetically exist because the theory is imperfect.

The most likely case in any refutation of "evolution" will be a modification of the theories behind the mechanisms of evolution, and not a refutation of the concept of evolution.
 
EgoffTib said:
Wrong.
Something only becomes a fact because we, as a society, deem it to be so.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
2+2=4.
This is a fact, regardless who thinks so and who does not.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
But it may, in fact, be a fact.
Click to expand...
It may be.
But, stating that it may be a fact and that it is a fact are different things.

Never mind that even if evolution IS a fact, it doesn't disprove ID.
 
Goobieman said:
Never mind that even if evolution IS a fact, it doesn't disprove ID.
Click to expand...

This is true. If I were religious I would assume that evolution was the deity's device for creating life as he wished it to be.
 
I personally don't like to believe any one thing. I think that whatever the explanation could be it is far beyond our realm of understanding and thinking. I think the fact that there are several theories out there shows that we are egotistical creatures who feel like we can sufficiently explain the eternal complexities of the meaning of life. I don't think we'll ever be able to sufficiently explain it.
 
Goobieman said:
It may be.
But, stating that it may be a fact and that it is a fact are different things.

Never mind that even if evolution IS a fact, it doesn't disprove ID.
Click to expand...

True. ID may well be the reality. But ID is not science, it is philosophy.

ID shouldn't be in opposition to evolution, IMO.

One can easily view evolutionary theory as an attempt to explain the mechanisms employed by the "Intelligent designer".

And there is plenty of evidence to suggest the concept of a "totally random mutations" in evolution is flawed. Sound arguments can be made using convergent evolution to show that it is very unlikely that purely random mutations are not the driving force behind evolution (The various animal types that employ some form of sonar, such as bats and dolphins, for example).

The issue would be if that lack of randomness is evidence of an intelligent designer (possible) or some law of nature we, as of yet, have no clue about (also possible).

And even if said law of nature were ever discovered, it would not be evidence against an Intelligent Designer. It could easily just be viewed as another mechanism employed by said Designer.

IMO, science only seeks to discover the "how" of things. The "why" is the realm of philosophy and religion.

In other words, science is not in opposition to religion, and vice versa. They can be very complimentary to each other.
 
Tucker Case said:
True. ID may well be the reality. But ID is not science, it is philosophy
Click to expand...
Ah.
It is not a 'science' because as of yet we do not posess the capability to measure what's necessary to create the science around it.

That is, if God created the universe through ID, there must have been a procees by which it happened. That we cannot currently measure that procees does not mean that process doesnt exist.

ID shouldn't be in opposition to evolution, IMO.
One can easily view evolutionary theory as an attempt to explain the mechanisms employed by the "Intelligent designer".
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

And there is plenty of evidence to suggest the concept of a "totally random mutations" in evolution is flawed. Sound arguments can be made using convergent evolution to show that it is very unlikely that purely random mutations are not the driving force behind evolution (The various animal types that employ some form of sonar, such as bats and dolphins, for example).
Click to expand...
In a universe governed completely by the laws of physics, nothing is random.

In other words, science is not in opposition to religion, and vice versa. They can be very complimentary to each other.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
EgoffTib said:
So is "human beings need oxygen" not a fact? Interesting that you completely ignored the second half of my post.
Click to expand...
Is the fact that 2+2=4 dependent on the agreement of society?

Of course not.

Thus, you premise that facts are determned by the consensus of society is flawed, as is then any example based on that premise -- and thus, the second half of your post need not be addressed.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
In a universe governed completely by the laws of physics, nothing is random
Click to expand...

Now that would be an interesting philosophical debate. Chaos theory seems to contradict it, but is it simply apparently random or is it truly random?
 
Tucker Case said:
Now that would be an interesting philosophical debate. Chaos theory seems to contradict it, but is it simply apparently random or is it truly random?
Click to expand...
There is a difference between 'unpredictable' and 'random'.

That we cannot currently predict the behavior of a particle or the outcome of a process does not mean that said process or beheavior is not governed by some law that, once discovered or understood, would allow said predictability.

In a world governed -completely- by physics, everything that has happened and that will ever happen was set in stone by the big bang.
 
Goobieman said:
Is the fact that 2+2=4 dependent on the agreement of society?

Of course not.

Thus, you premise that facts are determned by the consensus of society is flawed, as is then any example based on that premise -- and thus, the second half of your post need not be addressed.
Click to expand...

So then deal with the example. If we all woke up one morning, and realized that we did not need air to breathe, that would then make the fact(humans need oxygen to live) obsolete. My point was that facts remain facts unless new evidence proves this not to be true.
 
Goobieman said:
There is a difference between 'unpredictable' and 'random'.

That we cannot currently predict the behavior of a particle or the outcome of a process does not mean that said process or beheavior is not governed by some law that, once discovered or understood, would allow said predictability.

In a world governed -completely- by physics, everything that has happened and that will ever happen was set in stone by the big bang.
Click to expand...

Completely would definitely be the key word.
 
EgoffTib said:
So then deal with the example.
Click to expand...
Your premise that facts are determned by the consensus of society is flawed.
Thus, any example based on that premise need not be addressed.
 
Goobieman said:
Your premise that facts are determned by the consensus of society is flawed.
Thus, any example based on that premise need not be addressed.
Click to expand...
The example is not based on that premise. Please, re-read it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom