• 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
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.

Question? Just how does a truth qualify as being an assumption? A truth is demonstrable, either objectively qualified as a fact through the production of testable evidences or accepted as truth beyond reason of doubt as based upon the prima facie evidence, which lacks a counter argument based upon objective evidence that can dismiss that which is held as truth...in fact theoretical science bases its conclusions not upon Physical Science as per the yielding of Observed, Reproducible Experiments but upon the observance of today's known facts that (here comes the catch all philosophical phrase) point to a projected outcome. And believe me..there is far than enough objective evidence to give anyone with common sense a REASON to doubt, the most obvious is the falsification each and every time that Vertical Evolution is tested by the Scientific Method of the Observed, Reproducible Experimentation. Yet not one experiment can falsify CREATION as a viable explanation for the origin of man...if so, produce it.

Whether derived through facts or prima facie in nature.....TRUTH is not based upon assumption. I believe the field that you wish to engage is Philosophy not SCIENCE. You know the supposed question of the ages....WHAT IS TRUTH, What is the purpose of man...yada, yada, yada, a field that accepts the ignorance of asking a question that is ASSUMED has no answer as a sign of supposed intellect instead of pomposity, simply because you do not like the answer to the question.......Intelligent Design.

Such Pomposity even has Stephen Hawking rejecting Physical Science in a emotional need to dismiss God from the equation with his latest insane suggestion, "The Universe Spontaneously popped into existence from Nothing." Science...real science proves that if there ever was a time when nothing is all that existed, NOTHING WOULD STILL BE IN EXISTENCE TODAY as -0- + -0- = -0-
 
Last edited:
no debate here with me
I believe in god
I also believe in evolution, god gave me a brain and I simply choose to USE it like he intended
 
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.

Of course it's not proven, but the evidence for evolution is astounding, and to argue against evolution is to argue against all the fossil's we have found. There is also evidence of evolution that we can see happening today, with virus's, that mutant, and adapt so they can survive against our medicine.
 
Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then
When I was 7, due to pressure from relatives, my family started attending church. The first few times I was in the pews, but I was old enough so I was dropped off in Bible study for little kids. The class was studying Noah and the Ark. New to this stuff I thought it was a silly story, could never happen like that, and said so. I got stood in the corner. I told my Mom about it, she was upset, Dad not so much, so we went the following week. The next class got my knuckles rapped with a ruler and stood in the corner. I recall loud words between the nun and my Mom in the hall. We never went back.

So, was I educated 7 year old? No. Was I rational? Yes. Was I being indoctrinated at a very young age? Yes. Was it ever going to work? No. Had scientists been indoctrinating me? No.

Now that I’m much older: Do I respect authority? Yes Do I question authority? Yes. Do I verify and test what I’m told? Yes? Do I believe in evolution? No. Do I think evolution is a proven fact? Yes. Still the same person I was at 7? Yes.



Excellent. Have no idea what this has to do with the debate at hand though? So you say evolution is a fact and because you went to a Bible study 2 times, you were subjected to indoctrination. What does that have to do with the poll or thread?

Yes, you missed the point. The point is: How does a 7 year old decide that stories in a Bible are not factual. It certainly is not because I was a scientist or religious as adults are. And this belies the basis of the poll and the thread. So what does make a 7 year old decide that Noah and the Ark is not factual?
 
Yes, you missed the point. The point is: How does a 7 year old decide that stories in a Bible are not factual.

Children decide allot of things based on how they feel. You did not like the class, hence did not like the stories etc. Perfectly normal for a 7 year old.

It certainly is not because I was a scientist or religious as adults are. And this belies the basis of the poll and the thread.


The feelings of a 7 year old are not evidence of anything as far as I can tell? So you did not think it was real, so what? You only went twice and did not like it either way.

So what does make a 7 year old decide that Noah and the Ark is not factual?

Lots of things. Too long a list to go into here. The mind of a 7 year old is not that developed, so it means little as far as I can tell.

At this point it has also added nothing to the debate?
 
38% of the nation are Christian and acknowledge the theory of evolution.

You might argue that it's a battle between superstition and rationality, but it's just plain factually incorrect to say that it's a battle between the religious and the scientific when around half of the religious acknowledge your theory.

I might also think that the theory of evolution contradicts their religion in more ways than I can count, but their position is still an improvement over the Creationists'.
 
Children decide allot of things based on how they feel. You did not like the class, hence did not like the stories etc. Perfectly normal for a 7 year old.

[/color]

Lots of things. Too long a list to go into here. The mind of a 7 year old is not that developed, so it means little as far as I can tell.

At this point it has also added nothing to the debate?

Again, you miss the point. I didn’t have a dislike for fairy tales, I like stories. I also felt free to not believe they were factual. So if a 7 year old can figure it out, why can't others?
 
38% of the nation are Christian and acknowledge the theory of evolution.

You might argue that it's a battle between superstition and rationality, but it's just plain factually incorrect to say that it's a battle between the religious and the scientific when around half of the religious acknowledge your theory.

I might also think that the theory of evolution contradicts their religion in more ways than I can count, but their position is still an improvement over the Creationists'.

That statistics begs the question - why do 62% of the country's Christians not acknowledge evolution?
 
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.

Yes, mine is reality, his is fantasy.
 
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.

No. The heart of modern evolutionary theory is the absence of any pre-existing plan or goal. Mutations that do occur are flaws in the chromosomal replication, and selection is acting blindly.

Any presumption that mutations are not random or that the selection is not strictly mechanical invalidates the presumption of the theory of evolution by natural selection and transforms evolution into some "Intelligent Design" category.

there is no irrefutable evidence for intelligent nor is there any plausible theory regarding the mechanics of ID. Therefore, ID is not a valid properly formatted scientific theory and has the status of pseudoscientific twaddle, along with Velikovskians, the pyramid people, and the Crop Circlers.

Also, no one informed of evolution confuses that topic with abiogenesis.
 
Then faith cannot be verified and is thus wishful thinking. You're not making a very good case for the validity of having faith.

Well, let the Mayor straighten this one out.

Millions of people have faith that the lottery ticket in their pocket could be the winner.

When the fact comes out that it's not, their faith is rejected by the wise, and only the dogmatic persist in thinking they've won millions.

Faith is the belief in something without sufficient evidence.

Delusion is the belief in something in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.
 
I pointed out correctly more "atrocities" have happened and people murdered in the name of man's own inherent need for power in just the 20th century than all people dying for or because of religion in all of history combined.
And many of those were caused in large part to the same irrational certainty as is present in religion: faith. Faith in an ideology, authority, or ideal. Faith is an evil across the board, whether it is with religion or without.

So because of the atrocity's committed in the name of religion or "faith" you say it is not worthy to be "revered" or "applauded."
My criticism is of faith alone. Religions just happen to have any unhealthy obsession with faith hence they are often the target of criticism. Atheists are no less likely to possess beliefs based on irrational certainty than theists.

Faith can bring about great good as well as great evil.
I AGREE!. Let us remove the chance that people may stumble upon a faith in great good rather than great evil. Let us do good for REASONS and not because of the happenstance of our upbringing and irrational persuasions.


Like anything else you have to take the good with the bad.
Are you too lazy or apathetic that you would not seek to increase the good and reduce or eliminate the bad?

So yes, great faith and the billions of people it has helped since the dawn of man are indeed worthy of every accolade.
There is NOTHING that cannot be achieved by religion that cannot also be achieved through purely secular means.

Unlike your train of thought...We don't throw out the baby with the bath water. :)
Unlike your train of thought, we throw out the bath water and keep the baby. You have been surpassed.


Not all Muslims are extremists or represent extremist ideals.
I have not indicted all Muslims on charges of extremism.
 
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.

There is no "secular answer" unless by secular you mean, "based on objective and independently verifiable evidence and reason and not based on the assumed truth of any particular relgiion or holy-book tales".


I'd like everyone to notice how Digsbe attempts to make this a debate between religion and science. In fact, there is no debate. There is simply the whimpering of particular religious group when science presents a theory that contradicts their interpretation of a holy-book.
 
Millions of people have faith that the lottery ticket in their pocket could be the winner.

When the fact comes out that it's not, their faith is rejected by the wise, and only the dogmatic persist in thinking they've won millions.

Faith is the belief in something without sufficient evidence.

Delusion is the belief in something in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

Yes, but we know the lottery is actually real, and they actually have a ticket in their pocket which could, in theory, win said lottery. It's demonstrably factual.

Then you get religion, where there is no evidence that any god(s) actually exist, that the supernatural claims made in any of the holy books are real, or that any of the promises made in said books is more than wishful thinking.

Can you see the difference between the two?

Belief in something for which you have no good reason to think is actually true is delusion. Many people are openly and happily delusional. That's sad, no matter how good said delusion might make them feel.
 
Yes, you missed the point. The point is: How does a 7 year old decide that stories in a Bible are not factual. It certainly is not because I was a scientist or religious as adults are. And this belies the basis of the poll and the thread. So what does make a 7 year old decide that Noah and the Ark is not factual?

The seven year old decides it's silly. Mayor Snorkum had a similar experience, his parents sent him to Church School for his dreaded and silly First Communion, even though they never went to church and never discussed religion with their children. So I read the whole story of the Noah's Ark myth and long before the lady in the black up front was done reading it to us asked her "what's this word that looks like "dog" spelled backwards?"

Mayor Snorkum was the hit of the ball.
 
The seven year old decides it's silly. Mayor Snorkum had a similar experience, his parents sent him to Church School for his dreaded and silly First Communion, even though they never went to church and never discussed religion with their children. So I read the whole story of the Noah's Ark myth and long before the lady in the black up front was done reading it to us asked her "what's this word that looks like "dog" spelled backwards?"

Mayor Snorkum was the hit of the ball.

Mayor Snorkum ought to learn to stop typing in the third person, it makes you look ridiculous.
 
I think that's part of the reason why Europe is so much more non-religious than the United States: they have state religions.

If the government gets involved in religious matters people realize it's crap pretty easily.
 
Yes, but we know the lottery is actually real, and they actually have a ticket in their pocket which could, in theory, win said lottery. It's demonstrably factual.

Could be like those "three winners from last season now enjoying themselves in the sun" from The Running Man....I mean, they could easily create a new fictitious winner that no one's ever heard about and there'd be none the wiser. And they'd get to keep hundreds of millions of dollars, too.

Then you get religion, where there is no evidence that any god(s) actually exist, that the supernatural claims made in any of the holy books are real, or that any of the promises made in said books is more than wishful thinking.

Mayor Snorkum says that the "lack" of evidence is merely another way of saying that events are more reliably explaine using the laws of nature. However, the human animal has an innate need to create gods and more people are susceptible to this instinct than are resistant to it. Thus the argument that "no evidence" exists becomes subjective.

Mayor Snorkum doesn't disagree with you, but many others will, and they won't listen when rational refutations are presented to their "evidence".

[/quote]Belief in something for which you have no good reason to think is actually true is delusion. Many people are openly and happily delusional. That's sad, no matter how good said delusion might make them feel.[/QUOTE]

No. Delusion is a belief that something one imagines is not only real but that there's no doubting it's reality. Jimmy Stewart's "Harvey".

Delusions may be challenged when when the believer notices a crack in his perceptions of reality. The religiously devout denies any cracks exist.
 
Mayor Snorkum ought to learn to stop typing in the third person, it makes you look ridiculous.

Cephus should stop critiqueing style when he should be addressing substance. It makes him look ridiculous.
 
Question? Just how does a truth qualify as being an assumption? A truth is demonstrable, either objectively qualified as a fact through the production of testable evidences or accepted as truth beyond reason of doubt as based upon the prima facie evidence, which lacks a counter argument based upon objective evidence that can dismiss that which is held as truth...

I highlighted where I disagree. There are a seemingly infinite amount of explanations and ideas that can be put forth to explain ANYTHING. Even if we limit these to explanations and ideas that must be consistent with objective evidence. For example, I could right now invent a theory about how magical invisible pixies are the cause of gravity. I could make it entirely consistent and pick out experiments and obscure examples that support such an explanation.

So how can we discern theories that explain things but are mutually exclusive? Here is a short list of desirable properties for models/theories:
1) make predictions that can be verified and reproduced independently.
2) conform to the preponderance of evidence of reality.
3) remain consistent and coherent.

I've mentioned this a few times: I'm very impressed with the logical abilities of theologians, who construct the most intricate, elaborate, methodical apologetics imaginable (I don't include C.S. Lewis among them, though — that man conjured up flimsy, weak appeals to mindless sentiment and inanity). The gripe isn't that they're stupid or incapable of rationality, it's that they build fantastical castles in the clouds and expect you to ignore the absence of testable, observable support.

in fact theoretical science bases its conclusions not upon Physical Science as per the yielding of Observed, Reproducible Experiments but upon the observance of today's known facts that (here comes the catch all philosophical phrase) point to a projected outcome.
This is nothing more than conspiracy theory. As with 9/11 truthers and Area 51 loonies, such arguments will not be addressed. You will only be ridiculed.

And believe me..there is far than enough objective evidence to give anyone with common sense a REASON to doubt, the most obvious is the falsification each and every time that Vertical Evolution is tested by the Scientific Method of the Observed, Reproducible Experimentation.
How has "vertical evolution" been tested? Please reference the experiment.


Yet not one experiment can falsify CREATION as a viable explanation for the origin of man...if so, produce it.
Not one experiment can falsify CREATION as an act of giant invisible pink unicorns. If so, produce it.



Whether derived through facts or prima facie in nature.....TRUTH is not based upon assumption. I believe the field that you wish to engage is Philosophy not SCIENCE. You know the supposed question of the ages....WHAT IS TRUTH, What is the purpose of man...yada, yada, yada, a field that accepts the ignorance of asking a question that is ASSUMED has no answer as a sign of supposed intellect instead of pomposity, simply because you do not like the answer to the question.......Intelligent Design.
Has it ever occurred to you that I and many others have considered and evaluated intelligent design? That it was rejected not because of pride or prejudice but because it is an idea without evidence, without support, that is indistinguishable from any number of other poorly supported claims?

Such Pomposity even has Stephen Hawking rejecting Physical Science in a emotional need to dismiss God from the equation with his latest insane suggestion
Oh, i see. You are one of those presumptuous religious wackos who think that people reject your god-claims because they secretly believe its true. Am I right?


"The Universe Spontaneously popped into existence from Nothing." Science...real science proves that if there ever was a time when nothing is all that existed, NOTHING WOULD STILL BE IN EXISTENCE TODAY as -0- + -0- = -0-
What is your level of education Walter? Have you read Hawking's work? How much time have you put into understanding the theories put forth by physicists? Based on what you've said, I'd say less than a couple of hours.
 
Last edited:
You have got to be kidding? ...

So now we must read your mind and go by your unaccepted definition of words? :lol:

Wow. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Did you ENTIRELY miss this section of my post?

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.

Total fail there. Total fail.
 
It does not conflict. Again faith does not need evidence.

So there's no problem when the evidence from his job contradicts his religious belief?

Talk about cognitive dissonance there.

That is up to the individual as faith AGAIN does not require evidence.

And if that person wants to accept their God is the biggest deceiver of all time. Or they could merely acknowledge their religious belief is inherently contradictory.

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

A very specific belief. And you totally failed to understand why I called you a hypocrite. I made a very distinct point, as to which you fabricated my argument into something it entirely wasn't, calling my post baiting despite you doing the same thing.

Class. Here's blackdog. He's a hypocrite.

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

Which you have yet to show a single illogical point. Keep trying. One of these days you'll get something correct.

And I rest my case.

That you don't understand logic? I agree. You don't.

You do understand he was talking to Diggs, and not me?

Irrelevant. The point still holds true. You completely and utterly failed to figure out what everyone else inherently grasped from the start.
 
On the contrary, because he is arguing above science, he has made the best validation for faith.

But he also created a serious problem theologically. When one's daily life contradicts one's belief, either the belief is wrong, or your life is a lie.

Hence why I argue that YECs are not Christians, as their belief requires a Liar God, invalidating them as followers of Christ.
 
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.

So the fact that thousands of practical applications of it have no bearing upon your opinion?

You use oil products no? Want to know how oil firms often find the deposits? Hint: It has to do with evolutionary time lines.
 
Back
Top Bottom