• 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!

O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

Why not pay for it with tax dollars?

If you want the government's money to teach be prepared to teach what the government says. Most religious would simply object to this. So no point in giving them funding to run churches posing as schools. If you want your kids being taught religion then you'll have to fund it out of your own pocket.
 
Creationism leads itself into a loop with no way of verification or testing. That's why the scientific community doesn't support it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

There is no consensus among the scientific community on whether or not to "support" creationism. Some may, some may not. It's not a scientific question. It cannot be determined scientifically.

This doesn't really have much to do with verification or testing, but falsifiability.

If you guys are going to preach the importance of science, at least try to know what you're talking about.
 
If you want the government's money to teach be prepared to teach what the government says. Most religious would simply object to this.
Of course. The tax dollars are for a basic education. If we don't get what we pay for, you don't get the money. This should apply to all schools, including those that happen to be affiliated with religion.
 
evolution.jpg

All evolution may not be an improvement.

This argument over whether to teach creationism or evolution is a colossal waste of time.

Everyone is thinking what they believe is what's right and that's wrong.

These two theories are not mutually exclusive. I thought I made that clear.

They can be fit together by the thoughtful logical use of both science theory and theological writings.

I am not going to try to explain it all because these are things that can teach you if you apply your intellect to the questions.

I have spent a great deal of time theorizing all of the possibilities and ramifications to arrive at this conclusion, and I am now secure in my concepts on this topic.

Think about how the two can work together and your own theory may evolve.
 
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

There is no consensus among the scientific community on whether or not to "support" creationism. Some may, some may not. It's not a scientific question. It cannot be determined scientifically.

This doesn't really have much to do with verification or testing, but falsifiability.

If you guys are going to preach the importance of science, at least try to know what you're talking about.

Are you even joking about this? Seriously? There's no consensus?

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[31] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[32]

I'd say 95% of scientists acknowledging evolution is a consensus. Stop it please.
 
Last edited:
Are you even joking about this? Seriously? There's no consensus?

I'd say 95% of scientists acknowledging evolution is a consensus. Stop it please.
I don't really know what you're all excited about. You've highlighted a poorly sourced and unsubstatiated claim from wikipedia regarding evolution, and some "1987 estimate" that narrowly defines creationism as an abrupt emergence of complex lifeforms. Even those who espouse intelligent design wouldn't agree with that. Besides, can we really determine a scientific consesus through individual polling? What's next, a "scientific consensus" that funds for basic research should be increased? I wonder what the scientific consensus is on which fast food chain has the best french fries?

I really have no idea how many scientists hold individual beliefs related to creationism, but do know that a belief in evolution need not preclude such beliefs.

I also know that creationism is not a scientific question, and THAT'S the only real scientific consensus:
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."
 
I don't really know what you're all excited about. You've highlighted a poorly sourced and unsubstatiated claim from wikipedia regarding evolution, and some "1987 estimate" that narrowly defines creationism as an abrupt emergence of complex lifeforms. Even those who espouse intelligent design wouldn't agree with that. Besides, can we really determine a scientific consesus through individual polling? What's next, a "scientific consensus" that funds for basic research should be increased? I wonder what the scientific consensus is on which fast food chain has the best french fries?

I really have no idea how many scientists hold individual beliefs related to creationism, but do know that a belief in evolution need not preclude such beliefs.

I also know that creationism is not a scientific question, and THAT'S the only real scientific consensus:

Ah so what you're saying is that creationism isn't a scientific question. Not that there is no consensus among scientifists that creationism is not a viable explanation for the development of life on earth. Well that's completely different. Actually no, it's not. Let me introduce you to your new friend: 'semantics'. Semantics is a debate tactic where you create the idea that scientists supporting creationism is completely different than scientists own personal beliefs on creationism. A scientist who truly sees creationist ideas as plaussible explanation for science would pursue it. One who does not, would not. The polls I quoted are a reflection of this claim. That you keep crying and complaining because polls show how the scientific community has decided to back evolution over creationism is beyond me. I'm simply not willing to play this game of semantics with you though.

There is controversy though but it's not among the scientific community. It's among the mostly illiterate masses. Whereas polls show that scientists have a near-uniform voice when speaking about evolution, polls also show that the masses are split down the middle. As I have said before, the only division in this issue is among A) the knowledgeable; scientists and B) those who relly on the knowledge of others to make their opinions; the masses.

Serioulsy, this is not an issue which is up for discussion.

American Beliefs: Evolution vs. Bible's Explanation of Human Origins

PRINCETON, NJ -- Controversy about the origin of human beings continues to rage even today, nearly 150 years after the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. School districts have attempted, with varying degrees of legal success, to force teachers to teach students that the Darwinian, evolutionary explanation for the origin of life is just one of many theories. Advocates of the "creationism" perspective (and to some degree, the newer "intelligent design" perspective) continue to argue that the biblical story of creation -- in which God created humans in their present form on the sixth day of creation -- is as viable and as valid as the evolutionary perspective. Scientists largely assume that the argument should be over and that the evolutionary explanation is so well established by scientific evidence that there is no longer any room for debate.

On Darwin

As Darwin is being lauded as one of the most important scientists in history on the 200th anniversary of his birth (on Feb. 12, 1809), it is perhaps dismaying to scientists who study and respect his work to see that well less than half of Americans today say they believe in the theory of evolution, and that just 55% can associate the man with his theory.

Naturally, some of this is because of educational differences. Americans who have lower levels of formal education are significantly less likely than others to be able to identity Darwin with his theory, and to have an opinion on it either way. Still, the evidence is clear that even to this day, Americans' religious beliefs are a significant predictor of their attitudes toward Darwin's theory. Those who attend church most often are the least likely to believe in evolution, and most likely to say they do not believe in it.
 
Semantics is a debate tactic where you create the idea that scientists supporting creationism is completely different than scientists own personal beliefs on creationism. A scientist who truly sees creationist ideas as plaussible explanation for science would pursue it.
As I've said in the last two posts - creationism is not a scientific question. Thus, it makes no sense that a "scientist would pursue it" scientifically.

That you keep crying and complaining because polls show how the scientific community has decided to back evolution over creationism is beyond me. I'm simply not willing to play this game of semantics with you though.
Again you fail to address my position. I have no problem with - nor do I need polls - for your absurdly obvious point that "scientists support evolution." I do reject your implicit assumption that support for evolution indicates a rejection of creationism. Advocates for science need not be atheists. I'm sure those that aren't have found ways to reconcile their religious beliefs with their scientific beliefs.

There is controversy though but it's not among the scientific community. It's among the mostly illiterate masses. Whereas polls show that scientists have a near-uniform voice when speaking about evolution, polls also show that the masses are split down the middle. As I have said before, the only division in this issue is among A) the knowledgeable; scientists and B) those who relly on the knowledge of others to make their opinions; the masses.
What? MORE proof that scientists that do work on evolution support a scientific theory of evolution??

Thanks Captain Obvious!

What's next? Undeniable proof that religious leaders have formed a consensus and agreed on the existence of God? Can you imagine the uproar that's going to create... :roll:
 
Evolution has it's problems as a theory. Absence of that missing link, life having to have begun somewhere, and if we evolved from apes or monkeys, while are apes and monkeys still around?
 
Evolution has it's problems as a theory.

Here we go again.

Absence of that missing link,

Missing link for what?

life having to have begun somewhere,

Yes, it's called the planet Earth. Nice little spot in the Solar system.

and if we evolved from apes or monkeys, while are apes and monkeys still around?

We didn't evolve from monkeys. We ARE apes. We're part of a completely different family than monkeys. We're part of the Genus within that family known as Homo. This is basic biology. Seriously?
 
Evolution has it's problems as a theory. Absence of that missing link, life having to have begun somewhere, and if we evolved from apes or monkeys, while are apes and monkeys still around?

You can't be serious?
 
Absolutely. Can you answer any of those questions?

Basic evolution books teach this stuff. You are not serious, unless you were never exposed to science in a classroom.
 
I think a lot of people just cannot conceptualize evolution. Hence the perennial pseudo-gotcha question, "but why are monkeys still around?"

I think it's more disingenuous than that. The evolution in the most basic book shows pictures of familes of primates separating off. The tree? Jesus, it's not about being able to grasp a concept. It's at best, denial.
 
Basic evolution books teach this stuff. You are not serious, unless you were never exposed to science in a classroom.

Well, there is more to it than that. You can be exposed to the theory and still fail to understand it.

People like to categorize things into neat little boxes. "Monkey" and "Man" are two different boxes. But in reality things aren't in boxes, they are better categorized along spectra. For every species of monkey there are a thousand subspecies that will one day evolve into their own new species if given the chance. But it happens on so vast a scale that it doesn't make sense to some people.
 
Well, there is more to it than that. You can be exposed to the theory and still fail to understand it.

People like to categorize things into neat little boxes. "Monkey" and "Man" are two different boxes. But in reality things aren't in boxes, they are better categorized along spectra. For every species of monkey there are a thousand subspecies that will one day evolve into their own new species if given the chance. But it happens on so vast a scale that it doesn't make sense to some people.

I see where you are going, but I think that denial, which is an active refusal of a known, and not ignorance is what motivates most people to ask those types of questions.

Refusing to recognize a concept one grasps is denial.
 
I think it's more disingenuous than that. The evolution in the most basic book shows pictures of familes of primates separating off. The tree? Jesus, it's not about being able to grasp a concept. It's at best, denial.

Right, but even for people who believe in evolution its a tough concept to grasp. It is really an incredibly vast timeframe we're talking about here. The typical layperson's understanding of evolution is that successive species gradually evolve into one another, but remember they like to think in neat little boxes. So a fish turns into a dinosaur turns into a monkey turns into a man. It is just too much for some people to fathom the billions of gradations that actually occur in that process, it's just beyond the processing power of the human brain to think in numbers that big.
 
1. If you take apart an engine and bury it in the ground for a few generations. When the later generation digs it back up and can't find one of the pistons, does that mean the engine never existed?
2. Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. One of the processes of evolution is that subsequent generations of an animal change over time, eventually into another species. This does not mean that the original species does not stick around. In humans, the idea goes that there was a common ancestor of humans, chimps, and other apes, not humans evolving directly from chimps or apes.
 
Since you insist some one asnwer the questions and make your post look foolish, I guess I can do this.

Evolution has it's problems as a theory. Absence of that missing link

What missing link? Are you referring to transitional species, of which there are tons?

life having to have begun somewhere,

Evolution deals with how life changes, not how it begins. That is a totally separate topic.

and if we evolved from apes or monkeys, while are apes and monkeys still around?

Speciation is what you are talking about, and does not require one species to end and another to being, and in fact, one species can continue on and another species branch off. All that is required is geographic isolation. However, in the case of man, the last common ancestor with apes is Nakalipithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which is in fact no longer around.
 
Right, but even for people who believe in evolution its a tough concept to grasp. It is really an incredibly vast timeframe we're talking about here. The typical layperson's understanding of evolution is that successive species gradually evolve into one another, but remember they like to think in neat little boxes. So a fish turns into a dinosaur turns into a monkey turns into a man. It is just too much for some people to fathom the billions of gradations that actually occur in that process, it's just beyond the processing power of the human brain to think in numbers that big.
I understand the complexity. But the most basic parts of the concept are understandable to most everyone.

I have listened to arguments from evolution deniers. It's like listening to libertatians speak on ideology and philosophy. It makes my head hurt. I regress and get urges to swing from a tree branch, and pick at my rear end as I eat a banana. btw, did you see where 'Boy' from the Tarzan movies passed away the other day?
 
I understand the complexity. But the most basic parts of the concept are understandable to most everyone.

Oh sure. I'm not defending creationism or anything. Heck, I'm not even saying that you need to be particularly smart to understand evolution. You're right that any average person is capable of understanding it, with a little bit of mental effort. Getting people to put forth that little bit of effort is another story.

btw, did you see where 'Boy' from the Tarzan movies passed away the other day?

No I hadn't heard that, that's a shame.
 
Back
Top Bottom