• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution

tosca1 said:
Generally speaking, having no alternatives doesn't make a false the truth.
Click to expand...
I agree

Quag, whether there's another explanation of where man came from, doesn't change the fact about what is being discussed here on evolution. Therefore, that's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

So you have no thoughts on where the different species came from? Because if you do I would like to know what it is and what facts you are basing it on. Or are you claiming you just dont know?
 
i suggest that we all wait until LesGovt overturns the scientific world with his new theory of evolution.
 
tosca1 said:
Scientists shouldn't let their strongly held ideology - whether it's religious, or not - impact their approach to the scientific method. That's true.

Therefore, any scientist with any credibility as a scientist - shouldn't be making any conclusive statements about the existence of God.


Because.......science has something to say about the POSSIBLE involvement of God in how the
PHYSICAL universe works.

Surprisingly, the National Academy of Sciences had issued this statement (which is being used by NASA in its FAQ section). Theistic Evolution, is claimed to have been revealed - therefore, observed - by some disciplines of science (and it even specifically named a few of them).

Like it or not, the possibility of God is on the table.



https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
Click to expand...

Science does not have anything to say about the possibility of gods any more than it has anything to say about the possibility of sprites. Science deals exclusively with the physical, so if gods are not physical, science has nothing to say about it. If there is no physical evidence of any gods involvement in the physical universe, science can't make any statement about it whatsoever. Scientists can have opinions about gods, science itself cannot.
 
devildavid said:
Science does not have anything to say about the possibility of gods any more than it has anything to say about the possibility of sprites. Science deals exclusively with the physical, so if gods are not physical, science has nothing to say about it. If there is no physical evidence of any gods involvement in the physical universe, science can't make any statement about it whatsoever. Scientists can have opinions about gods, science itself cannot.
Click to expand...
The underlying insinuation in all of these fundie posts is that scientists actually do the opposite of what you state.

Fact is that no scientist does in the manner of making scientific claims about the existence or non-existence of gods. Those that do may deem themselves to be scientists but they're wrong the minute they pursue any such path.

That includes those characters deluding themselves as presenting scientific arguments for theistic evolution or intelligent design.

All of it being just another attempt at deflecting from the fact that applying the scientific method to the unknowable is simple junk science.
 
devildavid said:
Science does not have anything to say about the possibility of gods any more than it has anything to say about the possibility of sprites. Science deals exclusively with the physical, so if gods are not physical, science has nothing to say about it. If there is no physical evidence of any gods involvement in the physical universe, science can't make any statement about it whatsoever. Scientists can have opinions about gods, science itself cannot.
Click to expand...

But science doe have a lot to say about the nonsensical stories in the bibel. Let's start with the idiotic idea that all the species now extant could be contained in an Ark ....
 
Sweden said:
But science doe have a lot to say about the nonsensical stories in the bibel. Let's start with the idiotic idea that all the species now extant could be contained in an Ark ....
Click to expand...

Certainly. And those who claim those stories are literally true are in conflict with scientific thought. I was only addressing the general concept of god(s) as a cause behind the physical universe. Science only cares about physical explanations. If someone wants to claim gods are behind it all and at the same time does not refute any scientific explanations, science has no opinion on that belief.
 
devildavid said:
Certainly. And those who claim those stories are literally true are in conflict with scientific thought. I was only addressing the general concept of god(s) as a cause behind the physical universe. Science only cares about physical explanations. If someone wants to claim gods are behind it all and at the same time does not refute any scientific explanations, science has no opinion on that belief.
Click to expand...

True. Science works regardless of belief or unbelief about gods. They play no part.
 
zyzygy said:
True. Science works regardless of belief or unbelief about gods. They play no part.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's right. Science removes the requirement to believe in gods. If the need to believe is taken away this question arises: why should any choose to believe in absurdities?
 
Deuce said:
But plants did form. The claim that "no plants ever form" is provably false. Look out your window. See the trees?
Click to expand...

Godidit
 
Quag said:
I agree



So you have no thoughts on where the different species came from? Because if you do I would like to know what it is and what facts you are basing it on. Or are you claiming you just dont know?
Click to expand...

Creation. Personally, I believe in it even though I don't base it on anything. It's faith.

However....it just so happens that science has something to say about creation by God. It says the possibility is there.

I was surprised myself when I first stumbled onto that NASA FAQ!
 
devildavid said:
Science does not have anything to say about the possibility of gods any more than it has anything to say about the possibility of sprites. Science deals exclusively with the physical, so if gods are not physical, science has nothing to say about it. If there is no physical evidence of any gods involvement in the physical universe, science can't make any statement about it whatsoever. Scientists can have opinions about gods, science itself cannot.
Click to expand...

You seem like you're in a state of denial. Read again:

Because.......science has something to say about the POSSIBLE involvement of God in how the
PHYSICAL universe works.

Surprisingly, the National Academy of Sciences had issued this statement (which is being used by NASA in its FAQ section). Theistic Evolution, is claimed to have been revealed - therefore, observed - by some disciplines of science (and it even specifically named a few of them).

Like it or not, the possibility of God is on the table.



https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
 
Deuce said:
The claim that "no plants ever form" is provably false. Look out your window. See the trees?
Click to expand...

If you really think he's referring to that.....why say "probably?" You don't sound sure about it.
Haven't you seen the trees?



But plants did form.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's arguing about that. But, form from what?


Here is what he's been criticizing:


Rosenberg quotes England from the same Quanta article, “Under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.” Oh, really, does it?

Tour goes on, referring to the notion that random atoms will become a plant if given plenty of light and plenty of time:



The interactions of light with small molecules is well understood. The experiment has been performed. The outcome is known. Regardless of the wavelength of the light, no plant ever forms.
Click to expand...
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/w...delivers-chastisement-to-mits-jeremy-england/
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Creation. Personally, I believe in it even though I don't base it on anything. It's faith.

However....it just so happens that science has something to say about creation by God. It says the possibility is there.

I was surprised myself when I first stumbled onto that NASA FAQ!
Click to expand...

So then you reject something because it is not 100% proven to you but has lots of evidence for something that has no evidence?
Seems to me that is the wrong way to go about things.
 
tosca1 said:
If you really think he's referring to that.....why say "probably?" You don't sound sure about it.
Haven't you seen the trees?
Click to expand...
You read that wrong. I didn't say the word probably

I don't think he's arguing about that. But, form from what?


Here is what he's been criticizing:



https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/w...delivers-chastisement-to-mits-jeremy-england/
Click to expand...

Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen all behave according to basic physical laws of chemistry. They're not alive, and they're not aware whether or not they are attached to a living thing. Mix these elements in the right fashion and you will get amino acids. These are not random atoms, and they are not mixed randomly. Random is a straw man. Do you agree?
 
tosca1 said:
~.............Surprisingly, the National Academy of Sciences had issued this statement (which is being used by NASA in its FAQ section). Theistic Evolution, is claimed to have been revealed - therefore, observed -
Click to expand...
.....which confirms once again that you have not understood the NAS statement to this day, despite it having been constantly pointed out to you
by some disciplines of science (and it even specifically named a few of them).
Click to expand...
still waiting for you to supply those names together with the actual statements.

Because your link actually supplies nothing of the sort.

You keep repeating this dishonest claim but that repetition is all you ever provide.
Like it or not, the possibility of God is on the table.
Click to expand...
There isn't any possibility in science that is not on the table.

But that alone says nothing, something you'd realize if you understood the workings (applications) of science more than you appear to.
 
Deuce said:
You read that wrong. I didn't say the word probably



Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen all behave according to basic physical laws of chemistry. They're not alive, and they're not aware whether or not they are attached to a living thing. Mix these elements in the right fashion and you will get amino acids. These are not random atoms, and they are not mixed randomly. Random is a straw man. Do you agree?
Click to expand...
evolutionnews is a junk science site engaged in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. It is funded by the Discovery Institute of the same bad smell.

Tour never refuted evolution and it was never his intention either. Discovery Institute and its above spawn merely quote-mine him for their convenience, much as does tosca.
 
tosca1 said:
You seem like you're in a state of denial. Read again:

Because.......science has something to say about the POSSIBLE involvement of God in how the
PHYSICAL universe works.

Surprisingly, the National Academy of Sciences had issued this statement (which is being used by NASA in its FAQ section). Theistic Evolution, is claimed to have been revealed - therefore, observed - by some disciplines of science (and it even specifically named a few of them).

Like it or not, the possibility of God is on the table.



https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
Click to expand...

Science says nothing about the possibility of god. NASA is not science. It is a group composed of people. You don't understand the difference between NASA and science. NASA is not science. Science says nothing about the possibility of anything that is not physical because science only looks at the physical. What does science say about the possibility of sprites? Nothing, just as it says nothing about the possibility of gods. Science deals exclusively with the physical and things that are physically possible.
 
sKiTzo said:
Not sure if this is the correct forum but I'm having a difficult time believing that so many people think that evolution is how we got here. It all looks fine and dandy on paper until you try to apply it or get a mental figure of the actual process and what would have to physically take place as it progresses. Am I missing something?

For example, Any book or video about it that I've ever seen shows the branching off from one organism to the next, each becoming more complex, but they don't show the process in between each one because it would be an impossible mechanism. Are we supposed to think that the previous one just shts out the next more complex one? Did the first chicken egg not require a chicken to lay the egg? Did the first human baby not require an adult female human to birth it? Let's say it didn't. If no one fed it and clothed it it would just die after a short time. It would have to be a female that can self-fertilize in order to have more humans. Ten thousand gazillion years could go by and there's just no way it could ever happen. It's astounding that intelligent people seriously put forth such an absurd theory and actually believe it to be sufficient.

If anybody knows these answers I'd be interested to see them.
Click to expand...

Evolution is nothing more than a process of living organisms adapting to their environment by improving their odds of survival and reproduction. It started with amoebas and has evolved into the variety of species that currently inhabit the planet. I don't doubt that our scientific and intellectual analysis of existence up to this point is that far off. I do believe that what we haven't figured out, like self awareness, is still a mystery that science or humans may never completely understand.

How do you quantify consciousness, without it being part of the equation. Other words, how does self explain self?
 
grip said:
Evolution is nothing more than a process of living organisms adapting to their environment by improving their odds of survival and reproduction. It started with amoebas and has evolved into the variety of species that currently inhabit the planet. I don't doubt that our scientific and intellectual analysis of existence up to this point is that far off. I do believe that what we haven't figured out, like self awareness, is still a mystery that science or humans may never completely understand.

How do you quantify consciousness, without it being part of the equation. Other words, how does self explain self?
Click to expand...

I see it as just another trait which emerged to benefit survival. After all, most living things which move about are self aware enough to preserve their own life: avoid danger, find food, seek shelter, stuff like that. Advanced self awareness like humans exhibit is probably the result of us developing language.
 
tosca1 said:
You seem like you're in a state of denial. Read again:

Because.......science has something to say about the POSSIBLE involvement of God in how the
PHYSICAL universe works.

Surprisingly, the National Academy of Sciences had issued this statement (which is being used by NASA in its FAQ section). Theistic Evolution, is claimed to have been revealed - therefore, observed - by some disciplines of science (and it even specifically named a few of them).

Like it or not, the possibility of God is on the table.



https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
Click to expand...

Possiblity is not equal to evidence.

Not the same.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Possiblity is not equal to evidence.

Not the same.
Click to expand...

Someone's opinion that God(s) are possible doesn't mean God(s) are possible any more than someone opinion claiming God(s) exist mean that God(s) exist
The possibility or impossibility of God(s) is unknown
 
Is evolution really logical? There are several parts to this video, if anyone is interested...they'll play back to back on youtube...

 
Elvira said:
Is evolution really logical? There are several parts to this video, if anyone is interested...they'll play back to back on youtube...

Click to expand...

Oh noes! A YouTube :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom