• 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!

In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?


  • Total voters
    60
That depends on what you mean by "creationism". If you believe that Genesis is to be taken literally, then yes, I can see how you would find it offensive. If you believe that evolution was the way that god created life, then there is no need to be offended.

What I find absolutely incomprehensible is that some people still, now in the 21st. century no less, say that evolution is "just a theory" and is not to be taken as accurate.

I believe Genesis literally. Although I won't throw out the possibility that the universe is old.

Evolution is just a theory though, and I believe it's wrong and inaccurate. It's unproven and is a mere speculation of how life could have arose.
 
I believe Genesis literally. Although I won't throw out the possibility that the universe is old.

Evolution is just a theory though, and I believe it's wrong and inaccurate. It's unproven and is a mere speculation of how life could have arose.

What is a scientific theory?

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The theory of evolution is not just a theory. It is a scientific theory.
 
Not true.

On the contrary, it is.

Being confused about the difference between abiogenesis and evolution has nothing at all to do with "him no longer being a creationist." I am a creationist and yet evolution is a fact.

Tell me, when have I ever discussed the term creationist as anything other than a literalists? Hint: never.

Furthermore, I have made it abundantly clear in the past that when I say creationist, I mean YEC. Not the varying degrees of belief between YEC and atheist. So you interjecting I'm wrong on the basis of a definition of creationist I have never used here and made clear that I never will use is dishonest.

Try again. And with less fail this time.

Your post is mainly baiting, blanket statements and misinformation.

Your post is based on a position I have clearly stated I have never made.

Again, try with less fail.
 
So because one person is stupid, we must not ignore this fact and judge all people on the basis that some people are stupid? OK. Your logic makes perfect sense. :doh

Amusing you berate me for things you do yourself. Hypocrite much?

YECs are stupid. Probably because the belief itself requires a level of stupidity. It may be that stupidity is not required to start believing in it, but stupidity is required to maintain it.

For instance, the belief that the flood was indeed true. Despite the testable principles of water that a 5 year old can test in his tube. One YEC argued that God made layers contrary to how water acts. Except that he just argued God lied to man. Hence why I have argued in the past that YEC requires a liar God. And hence why YECs cannot be deemed to be Christians.
 
I don't disagree, but he is basically saying anyone who is a creationist is stupid. Some very intelligent people who are creationist for whatever reason can not be judged as stupid based on that belief alone.

Using a definition I have made very clear I don't use?

How honest of you.
 
Yeah, I know.

He's different in religion, he refuses to look at anything but the Bible, which is a little closeminded.

How does he get over the issue that YEC requires God to be a liar? After all, if the world was only 6,000 years old, then basically physics doesn't apply in practice as to what we see today. Either God lied in the Torah or he is lying to us now as to how the world operates.

How can one be a Christian when their belief requires their God to be the biggest deceiver of all time?
 
Faith does not require objective evidence, science does.

So what happens when all of the objective evidence he has conflicts with his religious belief? How does he mesh the billions of year old light he studies with the gapping problem of only 6,000 years?
 
That depends on what you mean by "creationism". If you believe that Genesis is to be taken literally, then yes, I can see how you would find it offensive. If you believe that evolution was the way that god created life, then there is no need to be offended.

What I find absolutely incomprehensible is that some people still, now in the 21st. century no less, say that evolution is "just a theory" and is not to be taken as accurate.

Indeed. Blackdog has completely failed to understand that the creationist detractors here aren't taking digs at theistic views on evolution. They're taking digs at the crackpots who think the world is only 6,000 years old.

I always find it amusing how people say evolution is only a theory. And then go use a pratical application of it.
 
It is illogical, and not paying attention to facts to say that the Earth isn't older than 6,000 years old. I'm religious and I do believe in evolution, and I really don't see how people seem to think that those two are incompatible. Evolution as a theory doesn't say anything about how life began, just how live changes, and adapts to the world around us.
 
I say, it is more of a debate between fundamentalists and everyone else. :lamo
 
I consider it more a debate between the educated and the ignorant.

Perhaps.

Kinda depends on how much the supporter of evolutionary theory knows about his side of the argument, doesn't it?

Doesn't that comment also fail to recognize that there are many religiously devout persons that have evaluated evolution and accepted that evolution has happened though they reject the necessary element of random mutation in favor of "intelligent design"?

Your statement is starkly black and white and illustrates not a condition of the evolution/creation debate but only your personal biases.
 
It is illogical, and not paying attention to facts to say that the Earth isn't older than 6,000 years old. I'm religious and I do believe in evolution, and I really don't see how people seem to think that those two are incompatible. Evolution as a theory doesn't say anything about how life began, just how live changes, and adapts to the world around us.

Well, Mayor Snorkum will explain where religion and evolutionary science cannot be reconciled.

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the assertion that the random genetic changes the provide the variances upon which selection occurs are indeed random. They're caused by faulty gene splices, or damage to the chromosomes by radiation or other process, and many other events driven by statistical chance. In pure evolutionary theory, there is not guiding hand, there is not foreordained path to the appearance of man. Evolution states, and this is what got Darwin in hot water, that man was not granted a preferred place in the animal kingdom, he is just one more animal in the zoo.

Most religions place man in some special place in the eyes of the Creator, and thus cannot be reconciled with Darwin.
 
A theory can be revised and still be wrong. Evolution has not been proven and is a mere speculation of how life arose.

You have to admit, evolution is the best we got right now.
 
Well, Mayor Snorkum will explain where religion and evolutionary science cannot be reconciled.

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the assertion that the random genetic changes the provide the variances upon which selection occurs are indeed random. They're caused by faulty gene splices, or damage to the chromosomes by radiation or other process, and many other events driven by statistical chance. In pure evolutionary theory, there is not guiding hand, there is not foreordained path to the appearance of man. Evolution states, and this is what got Darwin in hot water, that man was not granted a preferred place in the animal kingdom, he is just one more animal in the zoo.

Most religions place man in some special place in the eyes of the Creator, and thus cannot be reconciled with Darwin.

The heart of evolutionary theory is adaptation, and the survival of the fittest. Animals have mutations, and the ones with the good mutations survive, reproduce, and pass on their genes, and the ones with the bad mutations die off. Now those mutations could have been because of random chance, or maybe not, or maybe both. Now as to the beginning of life, well evolution provides no answer to that, just how life adapts to the surrounding environment.
 
On the contrary, it is.



Tell me, when have I ever discussed the term creationist as anything other than a literalists? Hint: never.

Furthermore, I have made it abundantly clear in the past that when I say creationist, I mean YEC. Not the varying degrees of belief between YEC and atheist. So you interjecting I'm wrong on the basis of a definition of creationist I have never used here and made clear that I never will use is dishonest.

Try again. And with less fail this time.



Your post is based on a position I have clearly stated I have never made.

Again, try with less fail.

You have got to be kidding? ...

Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism


It has little or nothing to do with YEC or any degree in between.

So now we must read your mind and go by your unaccepted definition of words? :lol:
 
Last edited:
So what happens when all of the objective evidence he has conflicts with his religious belief?

It does not conflict. Again faith does not need evidence.

How does he mesh the billions of year old light he studies with the gapping problem of only 6,000 years?

That is up to the individual as faith AGAIN does not require evidence.
 
Amusing you berate me for things you do yourself. Hypocrite much?

By saying you called people stupid based on a religious belief, I am berating you? Wow.

YECs are stupid. Probably because the belief itself requires a level of stupidity. It may be that stupidity is not required to start believing in it, but stupidity is required to maintain it.

Then your first comment is "YECs are stupid.." :lol: I am not "berating" you, I am laughing at the lack of logic in your statements.

For instance, the belief that the flood was indeed true. Despite the testable principles of water that a 5 year old can test in his tube. One YEC argued that God made layers contrary to how water acts. Except that he just argued God lied to man. Hence why I have argued in the past that YEC requires a liar God. And hence why YECs cannot be deemed to be Christians.

And I rest my case.
 
Indeed. Blackdog has completely failed to understand that the creationist detractors here aren't taking digs at theistic views on evolution. They're taking digs at the crackpots who think the world is only 6,000 years old.

I always find it amusing how people say evolution is only a theory. And then go use a pratical application of it.

You do understand he was talking to Diggs, and not me? :lol:
 
Faith does not require objective evidence, science does.

Then faith cannot be verified and is thus wishful thinking. You're not making a very good case for the validity of having faith.
 
Faith based organizations is what I meant to say. I was not talking about or including government aid.

In the end it is irrelevant to my point. The point is lots of faith based money going to charity etc.

What the hell is "faith based money"? Money given by religious people? Money is money. There's just as much, if not more, given by secular charities. Some of the largest charities out there, like the American Red Cross, are on the front lines of tragedy and disaster every day.
 
Then faith cannot be verified and is thus wishful thinking. You're not making a very good case for the validity of having faith.

On the contrary, because he is arguing above science, he has made the best validation for faith.
 
On the contrary, because he is arguing above science, he has made the best validation for faith.

There's nothing "above" reality, sorry. Just because he has a lofty delusion doesn't make it any less of a delusion.
 
Then faith cannot be verified and is thus wishful thinking.

Faith does not need to be verified by anyone but the person with said faith. Science on the other hand need needs to be objectively verified or it is nothing.

You're not making a very good case for the validity of having faith.

I am not making a case for or against faith. I am saying they are two different things and not only are they not comparable, they and not in conflict.
 
Last edited:
Faith does not need to be verified by anyone but the person with said faith. Science on the other hand need

You're not making a very good case for the validity of having faith.
[/QUOTE]

No, faith cannot be verified because anyone can have faith in anything they want, whether it's true or not. You can have faith in leprechauns and Santa Claus if you like, even though we know those things simply are not true.

Faith means nothing except to the emotionally and intellectually weak.
 
Back
Top Bottom