• 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
Jerry said:
A young earth creationist would see a clear contradiction. Religion is telling them that the world is 7,000 years old, and even gives a detailed linage to substantiated it's claim. Then they see that science tells them that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and provides evidence in support for that claim.
Click to expand...
Day age creationism has plenty of contradictions with what we have discovered studying nature (science).

Jerry said:
Typically, young-earth creationists are creationists first, because the authority of biblical commands have a higher impact on their immediate day-to-day life then do some fossils in a museum in another state, in their view.
Click to expand...
Typically, day-age creationists are creationists first, because the authority of the bible has a higher impact on their immediate day-to-day life then do some fossils in a museum in another state, in their view.

Jerry said:
What I enjoy about day-age creationism is that it resolves the conflict between faith and science in such a way that neither the faith nor science have to change at all. The person has to change, though, which is something a literalist would have a hard time doing.
Click to expand...
Day age creationism has just as many conflicts with what we have discovered about the world (science) as young earth creationism does!! The criticism is not about 24 hour days but of the sequence of events. No timescale makes Genesis any more valid because it contradicts what we know in just about every way.

Look at what the bible says:
1) Earth was formed before the sun
2) An aquatic universe
3) Grass and flowering plants coming before all other plants when they were in fact late arrivals
4) An early watery earth
5) The sun coming after the planets and after plants were already on earth
6) Birds and whales preceding other animals.

How much evidence and studies do you have to disregard to think this story is an accurate portrayal of events? It should be painfully obvious that it is a myth from ancient people making guesswork that has since been proven false in modern times.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...ism-almost-goofy-young-earth-creationism.html


1) Earth was formed before the sun
Day 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And the earth was without form, and void;
Day 4: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


2) An aquatic universe
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

3) Grass and flowering plants coming before all other plants when they were in fact late arrivals
Day 3: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

4) An early watery earth
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

5) The sun coming after the planets and after plants were already on earth
Day 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.And the earth was without form, and void;

Day 3: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Day 4: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

6) Birds and whales preceding other animals.
Day 5: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Day 6: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
well, their religion must have been far superior to religions today.
Click to expand...

It would seem the same could be said for their science.

IMO inventing the idea that science and religion should be thought of as 2 distinct and separate entities was a mistake.
 
Jerry said:
Makes one wonder, then, how the very religious ancient people knew the earth's dimensions, long before Marco-Polo, without the benefit of satellites; and then used those dimensions to build the Great Pyramid, something we still can't do today.

It doesn't seem out of place to you to assert the ancients knew practicably nothing while creating such mindblowingly accurate calendars like the Mayan did?

Either they had a sophisticated form of science, which rules out your dumb-as-a-cave-man accusation, or their religion told them, which rules out lame-explanation-for-what-they-couldn't-explain accusation.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting question. Of course, people thousands of years ago were just as smart as people are today, but most of them never got more than a few miles from their birthplace, and only an elite few could read and write. How, indeed, did they know that the Earth was round, let alone its dimensions? Yahoo answers gives us a clue:

If you watch a lunar eclipse, you can see the Moon entering the shadow of the Earth, which is a circle on the sky. If they could figure out the phases of the Moon and the reason for it, they could figure out that the Earth was round.
Click to expand...

That still didn't stop the religious dogmatists from insisting that the Earth was flat and was the center of the universe long after the truth was known.

Much like the religious dogmatists today are insisting that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that evolution is therefore incorrect.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Much like the religious dogmatists today are insisting that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that evolution is therefore incorrect.
Click to expand...

The notion that the Earth is flat is a fairly modern idea.

In context to how long man has been around, observing the world he lives in and partaking of various religions, it wasn't until the relatively new Catholic church deliberately used a erroneous literal take on a mistranslated text to keep political control of a local region, that anyone thought such a thing. And what's more, even to the people in that aria, at that time, either knew it was a lie and enforced it under pain of death, or played along to escape being burned to death. Beat, torture and terrorize anyone long enough and they will say whatever you want them to say.

And today, even the Catholic church itself doesn't teach the flat-earth theory anymore....so why do people still bring it up?

It's a relatively modern, short-lived lie. I've found no evidence that the ancients thought such a thing; in fact all evidence is to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
And today, even the Catholic church itself doesn't teach the flat-earth theory anymore....so why do people still bring it up?
Click to expand...

I brought it up because it is another example of religious dogma being used to try to counter observation and logic. Sure, people knew that the Earth wasn't flat, yet the church tried to impose that dogma that people knew was bogus by force. Today, we have the Biblical literalists trying to support the silly "young Earth" notion. The only real difference is that they don't have the power that the church did in the middle ages.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I brought it up because it is another example of religious dogma being used to try to counter observation and logic. Sure, people knew that the Earth wasn't flat, yet the church tried to impose that dogma that people knew was bogus by force. Today, we have the Biblical literalists trying to support the silly "young Earth" notion. The only real difference is that they don't have the power that the church did in the middle ages.
Click to expand...

I wish Christianity didn't brake with the Jewish tradition of learning Hebrew. We would be able to read the original texts for ourselves, individually. Perhaps that tradition was broken by the Church, in yet another attempt to maintain total control, but I couldn't say for certain.

It's amusing when atheists like scourge99 come here with a literalist read of scripture, then try to tell me what I think as though I'm also a literalist. I say the same things to such atheists as I say to literalist believers, and the conversation usually ends with my being damned to hell or the atheist equivalent of stamping a foot and slamming the door.
 
Jerry said:
I would be happy to offer the day-age resolution these issues, but I understand that your purpose is not to have peaceful resolution, but to persecute believers, so I read your posts with that in mind.

Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation
Click to expand...

Readers should notice how Jerry fails to address my arguments.

Readers should also notice that Jerry (still) has a habit of posting a link to some offsite web page(s) (usually of ill repute) in the hopes that spamming others with information is a substitute for an actual argument or explanation. Perhaps we should call this "Jerrying"?
 
Evolution is wrong :) I laugh at the idea of random chance creating order and life :mrgreen: There are scientists who believe in intelligent design and Biblical Creationism. Evolution is unproven and just a speculation as to how things may have come to be.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
Readers should notice how Jerry fails to address my arguments.

Readers should also notice that Jerry (still) has a habit of posting a link to some offsite web page(s) (usually of ill repute) in the hopes that spamming others with information is a substitute for an actual argument or explanation. Perhaps we should call this "Jerrying"?
Click to expand...

Not as clever as "dropping a Deuce", but I appreciate the effort :peace
 
digsbe said:
Evolution is wrong :) I laugh at the idea of random chance creating order and life :mrgreen: There are scientists who believe in intelligent design and Biblical Creationism. Evolution is unproven and just a speculation as to how things may have come to be.
Click to expand...

The theory of evolution does not offer how life began. The theory only regards how lifeforms change once life is present.
 
Jerry said:
I wish Christianity didn't brake with the Jewish tradition of learning Hebrew. We would be able to read the original texts for ourselves, individually. Perhaps that tradition was broken by the Church, in yet another attempt to maintain total control, but I couldn't say for certain.
Click to expand...

I couldn't say for certain, either, but it does seem like a plausible answer.

Jerry said:
It's amusing when atheists like scourge99 come here with a literalist read of scripture, then try to tell me what I think as though I'm also a literalist. I say the same things to such atheists as I say to literalist believers, and the conversation usually ends with my being damned to hell or the atheist equivalent of stamping a foot and slamming the door.
Click to expand...

It's usually easier to invent positions to argue against than it is to try to refute a position someone has actually taken. You see that a lot on these boards. You also see a lot of people who like to make up an argument, then leap and hoot and declare themselves the winner in some unjudged debate.
 
Jerry said:
The theory of evolution does not offer how life began. The theory only regards how lifeforms change once life is present.
Click to expand...

I know, that would be abiogenesis. With my statement I was mainly meaning to say how species came to be.
 
digsbe said:
There are scientists who believe in intelligent design and Biblical Creationism.
Click to expand...
Sure. there are scientists who believe a lot of other fringe ideas too.

The best explanation is usually the one with a general CONSENSUS by expert in that field or a related field. Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by scientists in the field of biology, geology, genetics, etc. Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Cast your lot in with the fringe if you must.

digsbe said:
Evolution is unproven and just a speculation as to how things may have come to be.
Click to expand...
Hardly. Evolution accounts for the evidence and has even predicted findings within geology, biology, genetics, etc.

The problem is that you start with the ASSUMPTION that your holy-book and your particular sect's interpretation of it, is infallible and beyond question. Then, you try to work backwards to reconcile the facts with your book. Your entire worldview is skewed and perpetuated by this irrational certainty in your religious beliefs. You lack the ability to examine the evidence and reason from an objective from an unbiased perspective. A problem you can thank your parents and church for who indoctrinated you with a literal/inerrant/fundamentalist version of christianity.

There are ways to harmonize science and christianity. But strict biblical literalism/inerrantism/fundamentalism cannot be reconciled with the facts of the real world without the invention of silly and absurd explanations.
 
iamitter said:
You don't have to cater to someone to make it a fact.
Just because someone doesn't understand the science, that doesn't mean that it isn't a fact. It means the person is a dumbass.
Click to expand...

Had you lived back in history and had the power, there would have been no Pasteur, Lister, Curie, Ehrlich, Harvey, Flemming, Kenny, Walter Reed...

All dumb asses, according to you...

ricksfolly
 
Religious descriptions of creation are just that, religion. Religion is not science and when the two mix the results are not pleasant, just look at the AGW hoax. That being said, there are numerous problems with evolution. There is no practical way to prove this theory.


As it is today the main purpose of evolutionary theory is to disprove the existence of an higher intelligence or something beyond our comprehension. Which is neither provable or improvable with our current understanding of science.

Other than an application in terms of genetics or eugenics, I see no use for pursuing the idea of evolution.
 
Last edited:
LookingGlass said:
Religious descriptions of creation are just that, religion. Religion is not science and when the two mix the results are not pleasant, just look at the AGW hoax. That being said, there are numerous problems with evolution. There is no practical way to prove this theory.


As it is today the main purpose of evolutionary theory is to disprove the existence of an higher intelligence or something beyond our comprehension. Which is neither provable or improvable with our current understanding of science.

Other than an application in terms of genetics or eugenics, I see no use for pursuing the idea of evolution.
Click to expand...

Simply put, were we created or have we always been here in ever-changing forms?

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
Simply put, were we created or have we always been here in ever-changing forms?

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

It really is irrelevant. Is it not? I mean we are here the only thing before us is the future not the past and certainly not the distant past. If the spark of life was discovered tomorrow, how would that change anything? If it proved beyond all doubt that there was no god, some wouldn't accept that. Some wouldn't accept the existence of a higher being even in the face of incontrovertible proof.

Granted there would be scientific applications but not for decades. I would actually present more questions than answers.
 
LookingGlass said:
Religious descriptions of creation are just that, religion.
Click to expand...

Well, in the case of scripture, how Genesis describes the origin of the earth, turns out to be exactly how it happened.

LookingGlass said:
Religion is not science and when the two mix the results are not pleasant, just look at the AGW hoax.
Click to expand...

.......Googles "AGW hoax"....oh, couldn't agree more.

LookingGlass said:
That being said, there are numerous problems with evolution. There is no practical way to prove this theory.
Click to expand...

Sure there are. In fact we witness evolution occurring, even.

LookingGlass said:
As it is today the main purpose of evolutionary theory is to disprove the existence of an higher intelligence or something beyond our comprehension.
Click to expand...

The main purpose of evolution theory is to study how organisms change to adapt to their environment.
 
LookingGlass said:
There is no practical way to prove this theory.
Click to expand...

LookingGlass said:
Which is neither provable or improvable with our current understanding of science.
Click to expand...

Theories are NOT "proven". They are supported. Evolution is nearly as strongly supported as the theory of gravitation (not to be confused with the phenomenon known as gravity). Read a book! I suggest "the greatest show on earth: the evidence for evolution"


LookingGlass said:
As it is today the main purpose of evolutionary theory is to disprove the existence of an higher intelligence or something beyond our comprehension.
Click to expand...
that is the silliest thing I've heard in a long time. Did you come up with it or did your pastor/priest tell you it?
Scientists don't try to disprove the muslim god, the hindu god, etc. They are unconcerned with that stuff. Scientists, such as biologists look for explanations for:
1) facts observed in nature
2) phenomenon reproducible in the lab

It just so happens that every once and awhile a scientific explanation conflicts with a particular religion's holy-book tales. Then the religious have a temper-tantrum. This has happened before: galileo and the mormons are two examples.

LookingGlass said:
Other than an application in terms of genetics or eugenics, I see no use for pursuing the idea of evolution.
Click to expand...

An understanding of evolution allows us to create flu vaccines, grow more efficient and plentiful crops, and breed animals for desirable traits (for food or affection). These are just SOME applications that probably wouldn't be possible without the theory of evolution.
 
scourge99 said:
Readers should notice how Jerry fails to address my arguments.

Readers should also notice that Jerry (still) has a habit of posting a link to some offsite web page(s) (usually of ill repute) in the hopes that spamming others with information is a substitute for an actual argument or explanation. Perhaps we should call this "Jerrying"?
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Quit the baiting, Scourge.
 
ricksfolly said:
Had you lived back in history and had the power, there would have been no Pasteur, Lister, Curie, Ehrlich, Harvey, Flemming, Kenny, Walter Reed...

All dumb asses, according to you...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. The examples you cited only continue to prove my point.

Just because some portion of the masses cannot comprehend something doesn't mean it is untrue. If some bozo says, well, I don't understand it, therefore it must be wrong - it doesn't make it wrong. It means the person is a bozo.
 
digsbe said:
Evolution is wrong :) I laugh at the idea of random chance creating order and life :mrgreen: There are scientists who believe in intelligent design and Biblical Creationism. Evolution is unproven and just a speculation as to how things may have come to be.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, they exist. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find "scientists" believing in many things. However, the purpose of scientists is not to "believe" something but to observe, test and draw conclusions.
I don't know if this was supposed to be a case for disproving it or what, because I could easily just say - Evolution is right :)
However, that would be intellectually dishonest and make what I am saying as faulty as what you are. I prefer to stick to facts, not beliefs when it comes to science.
 
iamitter said:
Well, yes, they exist. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find "scientists" believing in many things. However, the purpose of scientists is not to "believe" something but to observe, test and draw conclusions.
I don't know if this was supposed to be a case for disproving it or what, because I could easily just say - Evolution is right :)
However, that would be intellectually dishonest and make what I am saying as faulty as what you are. I prefer to stick to facts, not beliefs when it comes to science.
Click to expand...

"Belief" is a dirty word in scientific circles.
 
Jerry said:
"Belief" is a dirty word in scientific circles.
Click to expand...

The dirtiest, often.

Even though there are a few extremists on both sides of this argument, I have to give props to many of the more well-known conservative posters around here for explaining their viewpoint and what they believe, even when others tried to bait them into an argument they weren't interested in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom