• 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
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

The largest amount of aid and charity in the history of man kind.
 
Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes faith can be verified to the person of faith. Mine has been many times. So it is exactly as I have said.

So now anyone who has faith is emotionally and intellectually weak? Man I know some people of faith who would laugh at the ignorance of such an untrue blanket statement.
 
Blackdog said:
Yes faith can be verified to the person of faith. Mine has been many times. So it is exactly as I have said.

So now anyone who has faith is emotionally and intellectually weak? Man I know some people of faith who would laugh at the ignorance of such an untrue blanket statement.
Click to expand...

No, faith cannot be verified by anyone. It can be justified, it simply cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true to anyone, including the believer. Faith is an emotional crutch, it's a means of feeling better about the world when you cannot accept it for what it actually is. It's a security blanket for those who are too weak to cast it off and deal with reality as it is. You can laugh at it all you want, that doesn't change a thing.
 
Cephus said:
No, faith cannot be verified by anyone. It can be justified, it simply cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true to anyone, including the believer. Faith is an emotional crutch, it's a means of feeling better about the world when you cannot accept it for what it actually is. It's a security blanket for those who are too weak to cast it off and deal with reality as it is. You can laugh at it all you want, that doesn't change a thing.
Click to expand...

This is nothing but your own false security schema used to reduce your own cognitive dissidence between the reality that God exists and the fact that he doesn't talk to you. Faith is not an emotional crutch, it a personality trait of the strong.
 
Your Star said:
You have to admit, evolution is the best we got right now.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think the holes make it not feasible and it's not proven. I think it's the best secular explanation and that's why many chose to accept it.
 
Cephus said:
No, faith cannot be verified by anyone.
Click to expand...

Yes it can, if it could not I would not believe in God. The same can be said for many others.

Cephus said:
It can be justified, it simply cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true to anyone, including the believer.
Click to expand...

It does not need to be justified and it does not need to be demonstrated. I know because of anicdotal evidence, it would mean nothing to you. That is OK because as I said it does not need to be objectivly demonstrated to you or anyone else other than the person of faith.

You have already closed your mind to the possibility of God and the power of faith so no matter what anyone says, you will not accept the truth. That truth is that more exists outside the realm of science than exists within it. The fact that we discover new unknowns every day should clue you in on this.

Cephus said:
Faith is an emotional crutch, it's a means of feeling better about the world when you cannot accept it for what it actually is. It's a security blanket for those who are too weak to cast it off and deal with reality as it is. You can laugh at it all you want, that doesn't change a thing.
Click to expand...

It is a crutch for some, but not for most. It is not a security blanket as much as a spark of hope for those who have nothing left. It is the courage to believe in the face of great danger or great poverty. It is a mover of nations and a destroyer of tyrants. It's allot of things beyond your simple blanket explanations. It is more complex than anything science has to offer a man.
 
digsbe said:
I disagree, I think the holes make it not feasible and it's not proven. I think it's the best secular explanation and that's why many chose to accept it.
Click to expand...

Would you say the best secular explanation is worse than the best theological explanation. Because if it is, and if it is the best secular explanation, then it is the best explanation we have.
 
iamitter said:
Would you say the best secular explanation is worse than the best theological explanation. Because if it is, and if it is the best secular explanation, then it is the best explanation we have.
Click to expand...

I think the best secular explanation is false, leaving only a theological explanation that I believe is more strongly supported by scientific evidence than even the secular one.
 
obvious Child said:
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?
Click to expand...

We can trace back basically to how the Earth looked like when it was formed, how it changed, etc. Difference for him is, he believes the tracking and physical explanations up to 6000 years ago, which is when god put everything into place the way it looked 6000 years ago. He somehow finds ways to reconcile his studies with his faith.
The thing is, he acknowledges that he has no proof whatsoever of this. The best I've gotten out of him was that he knows it "because god told him in a way no one else could see or hear, like your phone being on vibrate in your pocket."

Now, I don't buy it, but that's the way he is. There's some things he's supremely logical about and there's some things where he uses no logic at all.
 
digsbe said:
I think the best secular explanation is false, leaving only a theological explanation that I believe is more strongly supported by scientific evidence than even the secular one.
Click to expand...

You think the theological explanation is more strongly supported by scientific evidence than evolution?
 
iamitter said:
You think the theological explanation is more strongly supported by scientific evidence than evolution?
Click to expand...

Yes I do, I also believe evolution is false and highly implausible if God did not have a hand in guiding it. I can understand theological evolution as a guided process by God (even though I disagree with it). However, a random process that resulted in biodiversity and life via the theory of evolution is impossible, unproven, and false.
 
Cephus said:
There's nothing "above" reality, sorry. Just because he has a lofty delusion doesn't make it any less of a delusion.
Click to expand...

The system which his God is understood is above "reality" and logic. That is the whole point. You are conversing on one level and he on another.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Faith means nothing except to the emotionally and intellectually weak.
Click to expand...

I thought the weak were those who could not allow those to have faith without being snarky.
 
digsbe said:
Yes I do, I also believe evolution is false and highly implausible if God did not have a hand in guiding it. I can understand theological evolution as a guided process by God (even though I disagree with it). However, a random process that resulted in biodiversity and life via the theory of evolution is impossible, unproven, and false.
Click to expand...

Life didn't occur via the "theory of evolution". And your last statement is just conjecture and opinion.

I've really never that point argued - that the theological explanation is more strongly supported by scientific evidence than evolution, or even by any.
 
iamitter said:
Life didn't occur via the "theory of evolution". And your last statement is just conjecture and opinion.

I've really never that point argued - that the theological explanation is more strongly supported by scientific evidence than evolution, or even by any.
Click to expand...

By life I mean the creation of species. I understand secularists believe in abiogenesis (which is also false) as the mechanism for the first cell ever spawned.

I do believe that the theological explanation is supported more so by science. It doesn't surprise me either. I believe God is real, that Christianity is truth, and it only confirms my beliefs with evidence when I see how science supports my theology.
 
digsbe said:
By life I mean the creation of species. I understand secularists believe in abiogenesis (which is also false) as the mechanism for the first cell ever spawned.

I do believe that the theological explanation is supported more so by science. It doesn't surprise me either. I believe God is real, that Christianity is truth, and it only confirms my beliefs with evidence when I see how science supports my theology.
Click to expand...

I can just as easily say, I understand the religious believe in creation (which is false). Let's not turn this into a conversation where we trash the other side.

I know what you believe, but I was trying to get you to explain more, by asking indirectly. I'll be more direct this time. What is your theological explanation and how is it supported more so by science than evolution is?
 
Fiddytree said:
The system which his God is understood is above "reality" and logic.
Click to expand...
This is a meaningless statement. It is meaningless in the same way that the term "square-circle" is meaningless and "north of the north pole" is meaningless. You are using language but attempting to use language in a way it that is nonsensical. Perhaps your statement triggers an intuitive or emotional response for you but it is nonetheless a meaningless statement.

Think about it. What does it even mean to be "above reality" or "above logic"?

Fiddytree said:
That is the whole point. You are conversing on one level and he on another.
Click to expand...
Precisely what is that level? Can you describe it? State its properties, rules, principles, or guidelines? It is as illusory as a square-circle.
 
iamitter said:
I can just as easily say, I understand the religious believe in creation (which is false). Let's not turn this into a conversation where we trash the other side.

I know what you believe, but I was trying to get you to explain more, by asking indirectly. I'll be more direct this time. What is your theological explanation and how is it supported more so by science than evolution is?
Click to expand...

I have said nothing negative about evolutionists. All I've stated is that I believe they are wrong and that I am right based on scientific evidence. If you look at the thread I would say it is the creationists who receive most of the irrational trashing.

I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe God created life. I'm a molecular biologist, I've read enough publications and have studied enough genomic sequences and protein products to see that these things didn't happen by random chance or chaotic mutations. Things have been designed in an intelligent and organized way. I don't believe the randomness of unguided evolution could have done this. Evolution cannot prove that a direct creature was the missing link between two proposed evolutionary species. They haven't looked at DNA or genomic sequences and found where the mutations have occurred that led to beneficial protein products that produced a new trait. It's all speculation and unproved assertions. I believe life was intelligently designed by God the Creator.
 
Cephus said:
No, faith cannot be verified by anyone. It can be justified, it simply cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true to anyone, including the believer. Faith is an emotional crutch, it's a means of feeling better about the world when you cannot accept it for what it actually is. It's a security blanket for those who are too weak to cast it off and deal with reality as it is. You can laugh at it all you want, that doesn't change a thing.
Click to expand...

Faith is an "emotional crutch"? Really? So the FAITH that our system of jurisprudence places on the verdict of 12 men/women on a jury is nothing but an emotional crutch? What objective proof do these men/women have to declare the guilt or innocence of anyone...if in fact they were not direct eyewitnesses of the act in question? Faith must be applied by both the jury in accepting the sworn testimony of any key witness brought forward by either the prosecution or defense, and by the STATE or authority conducting the trail, must have faith in the verdict. How many people are convicted of a crime on a daily basis here in these United States based purely upon "prima facie" evidences, i.e., evidences that are not witnessed but believed to be true beyond the reason of any sane person to doubt otherwise?

What about the FAITH that you might have in a physician? You might place your life into the hands of a total stranger because you have FAITH that you will not be the 1 in 10 that might die on the operating table undergoing the same procedure.....is that FAITH an emotional crutch?



I for one can prove to you that Christian Faith...true Christian Faith is anything but BLIND FAITH based upon nothing but emotion and hope. Christian Faith is based upon Objective Testable Evidences. 1.) Christian Faith comes from only one source...the word of God, "...faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the WORD OF GOD." -- Romans 10:16,17. 2.) The Christian is admonished to TEST EVERYTHING, and to hold onto that which is proven to be good -- 1 Thess. 5:21 3.) No one is born with an innate sense of Christianity, it must come from Hearing, and how does one hear and how has the Faith been passed from Generation to Generation over the last 2000 years if such is not grounded in the Word of God...i.e., the Holy Scriptures? Is faith a miracle? Hardly, Christian Faith comes by placing those Scriptures to the TEST. Simply prove One truth that is presented in the Holy Scriptures to be a documented, observed, untruth by using Physical Science or History Actual. The Scriptures are Objectively recorded, they read exactly the same regardless of what faith or lack of faith that you might have in the words that are being communicated.

Please...no Prima Facie Philosophy expected to be accepted as SCIENCE, no theories, speculations, assumptions..etc. Physical Laws of Science and History Actual applied where they might be tested.

Christians do not reject genuine proven facts of science. What many do dispute are unsupported theories that have been designed in an attempt to explain those facts (philosophy). For example, it is a fact that there are certain similarities between the bone structure of men and animals. However, it is an unsubstantiated speculation to suggest that this indicates that humans evolved from animals. No one is opposed to true Science which derives facts from Observed, Reproduced Experimentation.

And even attempting to measure the Supernatural by applying Natural Law is an absurd act of illogical lunacy. Example someone attempting to claim that God lied when He gave the appearance of an Old Earth when Science PROVES the earth to be billions of years old? Really? Just what Observed, Reproduced Experiment was used in calculating that age? The assumption of Carbon Dating which states that the rate of decay in certain elements has remained constant throughout antiquity? Really..again? Simple water leeching does not effect that rate of decay whatsoever? The real fact is the truth.....there is no source of calibrating any age past that of RECORDED HISTORY without introducing speculation....any age past that which can be verified by history actual is based upon...that TRUTH AGAIN.....PRIMA FACIE..which in reality is nothing but a truth based upon FAITH.

I for one again, would like to know just where the secular types keep their SUPERNATURAL-O-METER that allows them to test things which are by definition BEYOND NATURE or SUPERIOR to....
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
I have said nothing negative about evolutionists. All I've stated is that I believe they are wrong and that I am right based on scientific evidence. If you look at the thread I would say it is the creationists who receive most of the irrational trashing.

I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe God created life. I'm a molecular biologist, I've read enough publications and have studied enough genomic sequences and protein products to see that these things didn't happen by random chance or chaotic mutations. Things have been designed in an intelligent and organized way. I don't believe the randomness of unguided evolution could have done this. Evolution cannot prove that a direct creature was the missing link between two proposed evolutionary species. They haven't looked at DNA or genomic sequences and found where the mutations have occurred that led to beneficial protein products that produced a new trait. It's all speculation and unproved assertions. I believe life was intelligently designed by God the Creator.
Click to expand...

Well, trash is a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said something more like let's not make assumptions or guesses.

That's cool that you're a molecular biologist, what research do you focus on?

Everything you basically said was discussed in court cases on intelligent design, when they tried to pass it off as science - almost the exact same arguments if you can imagine. That things are too perfect to happen by chance, etc. Every single example of that was disproved by modern evolutionary theory - they can be explained.
When I split your argument down, it is basically this: "It's all speculation and unproved assertions. Evolution cannot prove that a direct creature was the missing link between two proposed evolutionary species." This as an unproven assertation on your part, because it's not speculation, there's quite a bit of evidence behind it.
On the other hand, for your argument, you say: "I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe God created life. I believe life was intelligently designed by God the Creator. I don't believe the randomness of unguided evolution could have done this."
I'm seeing your beliefs - I'm not seeing how scientific evidence verifies them.
 
iamitter said:
Well, trash is a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said something more like let's not make assumptions or guesses.

That's cool that you're a molecular biologist, what research do you focus on?

Everything you basically said was discussed in court cases on intelligent design, when they tried to pass it off as science - almost the exact same arguments if you can imagine. That things are too perfect to happen by chance, etc. Every single example of that was disproved by modern evolutionary theory - they can be explained.
When I split your argument down, it is basically this: "It's all speculation and unproved assertions. Evolution cannot prove that a direct creature was the missing link between two proposed evolutionary species." This as an unproven assertation on your part, because it's not speculation, there's quite a bit of evidence behind it.
On the other hand, for your argument, you say: "I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe God created life. I believe life was intelligently designed by God the Creator. I don't believe the randomness of unguided evolution could have done this."
I'm seeing your beliefs - I'm not seeing how scientific evidence verifies them.
Click to expand...

Its a methodological problem. YECs such as digsbe think like this:

1) Assumption: The bible is literal truth and inerrant.
2) Assumption: My sects interpretation of the Bible is unquestionable.
3) Evolution/geology contradicts #1/#2 therefore Evolution/geology is wrong.

YEC arguments center entirely around criticizing "holes" in evolutionary theory. Most of these "holes" are strawmen which have been explained over and over again. Just visit the FlatEarthSociety if you want a living proof example of something similar.

Even if evolution was wrong then YEC would still have to prove YEC theories are correct. You'll notice ZERO scientific support for YEC theories. That is exactly where it becomes obvious that YEC is not even a viable alternative. It is intellectually bankrupt. It is a position held only by irrational certainty, ignorance, and indoctrination.
 
scourge99 said:
Its a methodological problem. YECs such as digsbe think like this:

1) Assumption: The bible is literal truth and inerrant.
2) Assumption: My sects interpretation of the Bible is unquestionable.
3) Evolution/geology contradicts #1/#2 therefore Evolution/geology is wrong.

YEC arguments center entirely around criticizing "holes" in evolutionary theory. Most of these "holes" are strawmen which have been explained over and over again. Just visit the FlatEarthSociety if you want a living proof example of something similar.

Even if evolution was wrong then YEC would still have to prove YEC theories are correct. You'll notice ZERO scientific support for YEC theories. That is exactly where it becomes obvious that YEC is not even a viable alternative. It is intellectually bankrupt. It is a position held only by irrational certainty, ignorance, and indoctrination.
Click to expand...

Lulz, I am clearly wrong. You win.

I'm done here. Every thread like this degenerates into a "creationists are stoopid!" "Ignorant of science"!11!1!. Let's debate with respect and reason.
iamitter said:
That's cool that you're a molecular biologist, what research do you focus on?
Click to expand...

I mainly focus on cancer research. It's amazing what things we are discovering.
 
digsbe said:
I
I'm a molecular biologist
Click to expand...
No, you are a molecular biology UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT.

digsbe said:
I've read enough publications and have studied enough genomic sequences and protein products to see that these things didn't happen by random chance or chaotic mutations.
Click to expand...
I HIGHLY doubt that as an undergrad. You've been taught the basics. Have you even completed your organic chemistry courses yet?

digsbe said:
Evolution cannot prove that a direct creature was the missing link between two proposed evolutionary species. They haven't looked at DNA or genomic sequences and found where the mutations have occurred that led to beneficial protein products that produced a new trait. It's all speculation and unproved assertions.
Click to expand...
what hypothesis do you propose? What would you reasonably expect?

digsbe said:
I believe life was intelligently designed by God the Creator.
Click to expand...

Understatement of the year!

You don't just believe that life was intelligently designed. You believe that every single piece of life that has ever existed on earth, including dinosaurs, lived less than 8,000 years ago.
 
digsbe said:
Lulz, I am clearly wrong. You win.
Click to expand...

This isn't the high school debate team. There is no winning in debate.

If YEC had any validity then you'd be jumping out of your seat presenting the evidence and reasons its true. All you can do is hold up your holy book and proclaim your irrational certainty in a literal/inerrant/fundamentalist interpretation. Ok, SHOW US what you claim is supported by evidence and reason! That is what debating is all about. Do you only have opinion?

All you have is criticism about "holes" in evolution. Do you have ANYTHING that shows YEC is true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom