• 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!

Evolution

Does evolution happen

  • Total voters
    70
VanceMack said:
I think you are being dishonest if you assume or submit that MOST that believe in evolution are learned folk. Some? Sure...even many. But all? Heck...follow this thread and it is easy to see that many have their own 'belief' in science...and thats all good...really. But if you cant explain the existence of all matter you are left with "I believe...because...I think...and...Im not really sure...and I dont really know..." The origins of a mere cup of dirt defies our accumulated 'knowledge'. Lots of theory tho...
Click to expand...

I wasn't making such a supposition (and I completely agree with you. Go back to my post #231). If I did, I apologize for not being clear.

I was simply pointing out to Wake that there ARE scientific explanations for how each of those things came to be. To say that those he interacts with are "left silent" either means 1) that they're idiots (meaning, for instance, that they believe in evolution but have no clear idea of how it works) or 2) that he was being dishonest. I thought I made that pretty clear, but apparently not.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
So how many people do you think take the various versions of deity based creation literally (I am including all the creation stories that are found in the various religions)?
I was speaking about the the beliefs people had in the past, not the beliefs they currently have. But to answer your question: I don't know.



I'm curious, what do you think the current theory is on how matter was formed? What supporting evidence is there? I agree that no phenomenon needs a "God" or "Gods" - the explanations for the unknown are a matter of faith or lack of faith in some kind of "spiritual" force that is beyond our understanding
Click to expand...
Formation of matter: Which matter? Hydrogen? Helium? The rest? I spoke of knowing how elements form, not how the stuff that makes up matter came into being. But, if you are wondering how heavier elements form, they are a byproduct of star formation, life, and eventual destruction processes. Many large stars explode, scattering elements that they have 'created' out into space, where they are later gathered up into new star systems with new stars (and possibly planets, which are made of these elements).



O.K. ; what evidence do we have (I am a little familiar with the hypotheses, but need a refresher)?
Click to expand...
Evidence of the big bang singularity itself? Very little. But, we do have a lot of other evidence. One such thing is that the universe was very much smaller than today. But, it would be better for you to read the rundown yourself: Evidence for the Big Bang



While science has yet been able to support evidence of some kind of "spiritual" force, I am wondering whether the lack of ability to scientifically measure such a force precludes the existence of such a force? Is it possible that what people believe to be "spiritual" is in fact an incomprehensible force "embedded"/"a part of" the physical phenomena that we measure scientifically?
I spoke of all the major occurrences in our world and lives eventually having substantiated naturalistic explanations. I specifically stated god might still exist (is not precluded), but is rather inconsequential (being of no consequence - irrelevant). I am not sure why you are asking about precluding the existence of god when I specifically stated that god could still exist. I am not sure how to be more clear. I don't believe in god, but that is beside the point. A person could still have faith that there exists a god or gods, but that god would of necessity have to be of no consequence. If all major happenings in the universe and in our lives would be explained by substantiated science, then god would not be doing anything, would never have done anything, that matters. He would exist, but not be important.



I am wondering what evidence you have that supports the idea that all humans instinctually know there is no "spiritual" force that exists?
Click to expand...
That's not what I said. I said that they know that as god gets explained out of the creation of mankind, the proximate creation of the moon, earth and stars, gets explained out of the creation of the elements, gets explained out of the creation of the land masses... people instinctively know that if god is not consequential in these things, he may not be consequential in anything. That is what I said, but have restated it differently now. I added that this threat of relegating god to inconsequence is what led to resistance from religion to science in the past, resistance to science from religious people in the present, and it will again lead to increased religious resistance to science in the future.

People want their gods to be consequential. They want their gods to have a purpose for being. Like creating things, and guiding lives, and intervening by bending the laws of the universe to make things better. If we found that gods don't do any of these things, then we need not be concerned about them, even if they do exist.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
scourge99 said:
and some people care whether their beliefs are true. there are ways to do that such as with reason and evidence.

do you care whether your beliefs about evolution are true? how do you justify them?
Click to expand...
I may be the first honest person to say that frankly, I dont 'care' all that much whether or not my thoughts (I have no 'beliefs' on evolution) are 'true.' On my scale of importance, evolution is like...a 2. Maybe a 2.5. I have a full time job, another kinda full time job, do a significant amount of pro-bono work and a private consulting business, not to mention my home, several investment properties, a married relationship to continue to develop...AND my golf handicap....sheesh...Im exhausted just typing all that. So...I understand basic theories on evolution. I even take the time occasionally to brush up on new theory. But since I really dont have to worry if I am landing on Seti Alpha six or Seti Alpha five...well...life kinda takes precedence.
 
VanceMack said:
I may be the first honest person to say that frankly, I dont 'care' all that much whether or not my thoughts (I have no 'beliefs' on evolution) are 'true.' On my scale of importance, evolution is like...a 2. Maybe a 2.5. I have a full time job, another kinda full time job, do a significant amount of pro-bono work and a private consulting business, not to mention my home, several investment properties, a married relationship to continue to develop...AND my golf handicap....sheesh...Im exhausted just typing all that. So...I understand basic theories on evolution. I even take the time occasionally to brush up on new theory. But since I really dont have to worry if I am landing on Seti Alpha six or Seti Alpha five...well...life kinda takes precedence.
Click to expand...

Unless you're a scientist, evolution doesn't really impact your life. Even if you're a politician, the only time that you're going to have to address evolution is when it comes time to authorize funding requests for scientists who study issues pertaining to evolution. Other than that, you can be a raging religious or leftist creationist and it doesn't matter. Well, scratch that. It doesn't matter if you're a religious creationists for no public policy is ever built on the basis of that fallacy. Liberal creationism and politics though mix like oil and water. This means that liberal creationists do more damage when they are politicians because they actually implement their myths via policy.
 
VanceMack said:
I think you are being dishonest if you assume or submit that MOST that believe in evolution are learned folk. Some? Sure...even many. But all? Heck...follow this thread and it is easy to see that many have their own 'belief' in science...and thats all good...really. But if you cant explain the existence of all matter you are left with "I believe...because...I think...and...Im not really sure...and I dont really know..." The origins of a mere cup of dirt defies our accumulated 'knowledge'. Lots of theory tho...
Click to expand...

Well, if a science minded person says "I don't know", which is what you are saying they are saying, then they are taking the most rational position available. Is there something wrong with that?

A person saying that they know, when they have no reason to, is foolishness. It seems like you think that they would be more rational by making some sort of unsubstantiated claim. Which unsubstantiated claim should they make, about that mere cup of dirt? Or are you an equal opportunity unsubstantiated claim accepter, and they can make any one they wish, believe it, and still be deemed rational?

How about this one: An infinite sized army of magical pixies that have existed for eternity got together and created that cup o' dirt out of nothing. They're not that strong individually, but together they pack quite a wallop. They thought it would be entertaining to create that pile of dirt along with at the same time creating the whole universe, as a place where they could finally wreak endless mischief. They're not doing anything on Earth at this current time in our history, but in the past they have caused people to believe the most outlandish things!! Many of which I am sure you are already aware. We're not even sure if they are in our universe right now at all, because they are pure spirit and not of the substance of this universe, so there is no way for us to detect them. They may even have all destroyed one another, cuz they only occasionally agree to act in concert, and most of the time are fighting. But since they existed for eternity in the past, they probably can't destroy one another.

Am I rational for believing this? It explains your cup o' dirt, and just about anything else we don't yet have an explanation for. It is even a bit more rational that the claim that god would WANT to do anything, so god couldn't want to create a universe, or us in it. Whereas the Pixie Army at least has a plausible explanation.
 
Dezaad said:
I was speaking about the the beliefs people had in the past, not the beliefs they currently have. But to answer your question: I don't know.
Click to expand...

Fair enough; I am thinking that some people, likely the less educated ones, take certain religious texts a little too literally, but I don't know either, I'm just speculating

Dezaad said:
Formation of matter: Which matter? Hydrogen? Helium? The rest? I spoke of knowing how elements form, not how the stuff that makes up matter came into being. But, if you are wondering how heavier elements form, they are a byproduct of star formation, life, and eventual destruction processes. Many large stars explode, scattering elements that they have 'created' out into space, where they are later gathered up into new star systems with new stars (and possibly planets, which are made of these elements).
Click to expand...

O.K. I wasn't sure if you were referring only specific elements or matter itself; clearly you were referring to elements only.

Dezaad said:
Evidence of the big bang singularity itself? Very little. But, we do have a lot of other evidence. One such thing is that the universe was very much smaller than today. But, it would be better for you to read the rundown yourself: Evidence for the Big Bang
Click to expand...

That was my understanding as well; thus my position that because the method of the formation of matter is not well supported, the existence of one or many "spiritual" forces is not precluded

Dezaad said:
I spoke of all the major occurrences in our world and lives eventually having substantiated naturalistic explanations. I specifically stated god might still exist (is not precluded), but is rather inconsequential (being of no consequence - irrelevant). I am not sure why you are asking about precluding the existence of god when I specifically stated that god could still exist. I am not sure how to be more clear. I don't believe in god, but that is beside the point. A person could still have faith that there exists a god or gods, but that god would of necessity have to be of no consequence. If all major happenings in the universe and in our lives would be explained by substantiated science, then god would not be doing anything, would never have done anything, that matters. He would exist, but not be important.
Click to expand...

O.K., I wasn't asking whether or not you personally believed in "spiritual" forces; only wondering if you deny the possibility of them.

I do disagree that the scientific method could ever rule out the existence of "spiritual" forces ... unless of course there were some way to measure spiritual forces; as such forces (if they exist) are likely incomprehensible by the human brain, it could be possible that everything we observe in our physical world is part of a "spiritual" force, this is of course a matter of faith and not science

Dezaad said:
That's not what I said. I said that they know that as god gets explained out of the creation of mankind, the proximate creation of the moon, earth and stars, gets explained out of the creation of the elements, gets explained out of the creation of the land masses... people instinctively know that if god is not consequential in these things, he may not be consequential in anything.
Click to expand...

Sure, from my studies of psychology, doubt regarding any believe is highly supported to be inevitable

Dezaad said:
That is what I said, but have restated it differently now. I added that this threat of relegating god to inconsequence is what led to resistance from religion to science in the past, resistance to science from religious people in the present, and it will again lead to increased religious resistance to science in the future.
Click to expand...

Sure, I can see how the fear of science somehow disproving the existence of "spiritual" forces could make highly spiritual individuals uneasy

Dezaad said:
People want their gods to be consequential. They want their gods to have a purpose for being. Like creating things, and guiding lives, and intervening by bending the laws of the universe to make things better. If we found that gods don't do any of these things, then we need not be concerned about them, even if they do exist.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more; history and psychological theories have supported the idea that human existence is essentially synonymous with believing in some kind of explanation for our world
 
VanceMack said:
I may be the first
Click to expand...
you aren't.

VanceMack said:
I dont 'care' all that much whether or not my beliefs are 'true.'
Click to expand...
then there is no point in discussing it with you if all you can contribute is an arbitrary opinion.



VanceMack said:
On my scale of importance, evolution is like...a 2. maybe 2.5
Click to expand...
so? there are lots of unimportant matters and ideas. but why would you willfully want to be wrong about any of them ?

its one thing to be apathetic. its quite another to intentionally deceive yourself.

to use an analogy, false beliefs are like weeds. though they are usually irrelevant they tend to spring up in unpredictable places and ruin the plants around them.
 
OscarB63 said:
do you have proof otherwise?
Click to expand...
i have the same amount of proof that a particular god created the universe as i do that a magic leprechaun did it. what reason or evidence do you have to believe that either are true (which is NOT the same thing as claiming they are false).

think about it this way: the number of people who sneezed between 1945 and 1970 is either even or odd. according to your line of thinking, unless there is proof that the number of people who sneezed is not odd then we should believe its odd.

if you understand why that is flawed reasoning then you will understand why your line of thinking is flawed.
 
Last edited:
Dezaad said:
Well, if a science minded person says "I don't know", which is what you are saying they are saying, then they are taking the most rational position available. Is there something wrong with that?

A person saying that they know, when they have no reason to, is foolishness. It seems like you think that they would be more rational by making some sort of unsubstantiated claim. Which unsubstantiated claim should they make, about that mere cup of dirt? Or are you an equal opportunity unsubstantiated claim accepter, and they can make any one they wish, believe it, and still be deemed rational?

How about this one: An infinite sized army of magical pixies that have existed for eternity got together and created that cup o' dirt out of nothing. They're not that strong individually, but together they pack quite a wallop. They thought it would be entertaining to create that pile of dirt along with at the same time creating the whole universe, as a place where they could finally wreak endless mischief. They're not doing anything on Earth at this current time in our history, but in the past they have caused people to believe the most outlandish things!! Many of which I am sure you are already aware. We're not even sure if they are in our universe right now at all, because they are pure spirit and not of the substance of this universe, so there is no way for us to detect them. They may even have all destroyed one another, cuz they only occasionally agree to act in concert, and most of the time are fighting. But since they existed for eternity in the past, they probably can't destroy one another.

Am I rational for believing this? It explains your cup o' dirt, and just about anything else we don't yet have an explanation for. It is even a bit more rational that the claim that god would WANT to do anything, so god couldn't want to create a universe, or us in it. Whereas the Pixie Army at least has a plausible explanation.
Click to expand...
The Pixie army theory is as acceptable as the "well...it just has always been there" argument. I dont know is certainly an acceptable answer. An honest answer even. Which is why it probably is a good idea NOT to follow "I dont know" with, "but I know you are wrong", or "but you are an idiot for believing in God." It would be equally silly to say "I KNOW that there is a God." Believe? Sure. Hope? by all means. Intuitively feel? Why not.

When it comes to evolution, there are lots of theories as to 'how' complex organs are created. But 'why' is another thing. Natural selection I get. The macro evolutionary process...not so much.
 
scourge99 said:
you aren't.


then there is no point in discussing it with you if all you can contribute is an arbitrary opinion.




so? there are lots of unimportant matters and ideas. but why would you willfully want to be wrong about any of them ?

its one thing to be apathetic. its quite another to intentionally deceive yourself.

to use an analogy, false beliefs are like weeds. though they are usually irrelevant they tend to spring up in unpredictable places and ruin the plants around them.
Click to expand...
Willful deception is commonly practiced. Even by those science minded folks. People frequently research things not to find the 'truth' but with the specific intent to prove a hypothesis. Mans gotta publish...right?
 
VanceMack said:
Willful deception is commonly practiced. Even by those science minded folks. People frequently research things not to find the 'truth' but with the specific intent to prove a hypothesis. Mans gotta publish...right?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that scientists fabricate results? The only way to prove a hypothesis is to find supporting evidence. Unless the evidence is false, then your premise is faulty. Go ahead, accuse the scientific community of just being a bunch of liars.
 
Paschendale said:
Are you suggesting that scientists fabricate results? The only way to prove a hypothesis is to find supporting evidence. Unless the evidence is false, then your premise is faulty. Go ahead, accuse the scientific community of just being a bunch of liars.
Click to expand...

Scientists are not saints. Society is blessed that the scientific method is accepted as a norm for how science is conducted. The process of science WILL correct for negligence and fraud, eventually. Eventually.

There is all sorts of bull**** that happens in the matter of how the work of science is conducted. The social system that governs the conduct of science is most certainly subject to corruption. The work of people that one criticizes in a paper can end up being anonymously reviewed by the person you're criticizing.

The point is that anything bad you can imagine about scientists is likely to exist somewhere right now. The only shining light here is that the methods of science erode the corruption that can find it's way into the social systems which govern the conduct of scientists. Truth will eventually come out.
 
Paschendale said:
Are you suggesting that scientists fabricate results? The only way to prove a hypothesis is to find supporting evidence. Unless the evidence is false, then your premise is faulty. Go ahead, accuse the scientific community of just being a bunch of liars.
Click to expand...
ALL of the scientific community? No...of course not. Some? Helz yes.
 
VanceMack said:
ALL of the scientific community? No...of course not. Some? Helz yes.
Click to expand...

the theory of evolution is based on a large body of evidence. for this whole conspiracy theory to work would require that a majority of biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, etc are all in on the conspiracy.
 
scourge99 said:
the theory of evolution is based on a large body of evidence. for this whole conspiracy theory to work would require that a majority of biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, etc are all in on the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Where did anyone mention conspiracy theories?
 
Redress said:
Do you believe evolution happened and is happening? Do you think a higher power guides evolution or is it random?
Click to expand...

It is happening alright, but there has to be an intelligent, powerful force behind it.
 
Dillon said:
It is happening alright, but there has to be an intelligent, powerful force behind it.
Click to expand...

Do you mean a force that is "directing" evolution?
 
Dillon said:
Yes, i suppose i do. An intelligent being in other words.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering the question. Your position is why I've been very careful with my language in earlier parts of the debate.
 
StillBallin75 said:
what force? The Force? The invisible hand? Natural selection?
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure. But it has to be something. I personally believe it to be God.
 
Dillon said:
I don't know for sure. But it has to be something. I personally believe it to be God.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Personally, I don't doubt the existence of God, but I don't believe His existence is necessary to explain the process of evolution. I don't think there necessarily needs to be an intelligent force for the evolutionary process to exist. Can you explain why you believe it "has to be something"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom