• 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!

Do you reject evolution?

Do you reject evolution?


  • Total voters
    114
What makes Creationism believable?

what makes evolution believable? both are theoretical assumptions, but idea of god at least says what was before nothing. I believe god created the human and used evolution for it.
 
what makes evolution believable? both are theoretical assumptions, but idea of god at least says what was before nothing. I believe god created the human and used evolution for it.

Why would evolution explain what "came before nothing"? It's not theoretical physics. It's a parsimonious explanation for the diversity of life, which every new piece of evidence has validated.
 
what makes evolution believable? both are theoretical assumptions, but idea of god at least says what was before nothing. I believe god created the human and used evolution for it.
What Ben K. said, but in addition:

The theory of evolution is limited to the explanation of the diversity of life. How self-replicating organisms, through the combination of (1) random genetic inheritances and errors/mutations and (2) external environmental pressures ended up creating diverging populations of life forms.

Pre- material existence or the creation of life (abiogenesis) are different subject areas all together.

As a side-note, extinct hominid species like Neanderthals or homo erectus show that consciousness and self-awareness were not limited to modern day humans. Genetic comparisons seem to demonstrate that archaic humans mated with Neanderthals at one point. Even Great Apes, who our closest living relatives, show very limited forms (video) of what religions would call a "soul". You might have to fit that into your theory too.
 
Last edited:
Why would evolution explain what "came before nothing"? It's not theoretical physics. It's a parsimonious explanation for the diversity of life, which every new piece of evidence has validated.

so, it does not necessarily mean that religion is irrelevant. if the bible says that the God created the animals is it a denial of the evolution? I will assume hypothetically that god created the first cell of existence of each and every living creature and only after they evaluated. who is able to prove the opposite?
 
so, it does not necessarily mean that religion is irrelevant. if the bible says that the God created the animals is it a denial of the evolution? I will assume hypothetically that god created the first cell of existence of each and every living creature and only after they evaluated. who is able to prove the opposite?
Empirical evidence nuances the Bible's story.

Genesis 1:25 (KJV) said:
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.

In a sense all living things are the same "kind." Why else do you think scientist can take a gene from salmon and put it into a tomato to create a tomato better resistant to frost? Or create glowing mice using Jellyfish DNA? All living life (found so far) derives from a common ancestor and exists with similar enough genetic structures, that artificially inserted jellyfish's DNA can be read by the another species' cells and produce the florescent proteins.

Even the term species is a bit loaded. If two organisms of different species have similar enough genetic codes & phenotypes, they can produce viable offspring. Lions and tigers in captivity can mate and produce non-fertile "Ligers." Dolphins and killer whales can produce "Wolphins." Or if you're willing, there's even biological circumstances like ring species. That's where Species A can produce viable offspring with Species B, B with C, C with D. It creates a continuum of species with each being able to interbreed with another species next to it in the chain.

It's a straight up violation of "kind".

Gensis 1:27 said:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Even that is half-way disputed by observational evidence. I think it's something like 1% of live human births are intersex babies. That is babies that have a variety of both male and female characteristics. I'd link to pictures, but that would be way too graphic. It demonstrates that biological sex can be androgynous and is anything but clear-cut.

Or, for example, why do men have nipples? All humans are phenotypically female at conception. Breasts start developing in humans before the male androgens kick in at weeks 6-8 of pregnancy. When the ancient Hebrews were writing Genesis, they didn't have the scientific knowledge to reflect this in their writings.
 
Last edited:
I do not reject evolution.

Far too much evidence presented; accepted by the general scientific community; No counter evidence of significance presented, as far as I know.

miley-cyrus-2224429.jpg
 
what makes evolution believable? both are theoretical assumptions, but idea of god at least says what was before nothing. I believe god created the human and used evolution for it.

It isn't just a theory... it is a scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so, it does not necessarily mean that religion is irrelevant. if the bible says that the God created the animals is it a denial of the evolution? I will assume hypothetically that god created the first cell of existence of each and every living creature and only after they evaluated. who is able to prove the opposite?

The problem is that once some of the Bible is factually proven to be false then the validity of the rest of the Bible can reasonably be questioned. Since it was written hundreds of years after Jesus by different people at different times with exact quotes I think that it is more than reasonable to think that the Bible fictitious.
 
Oh my. Our educational system has failed us all. Let me paraphrase; I don't know if God exists, but I'm pretty sure we were intelligently designed and we have souls. Let me be the first to inform you . . . your words indicate you believe in a higher power who gave us souls and intelligently designed us. YOU are not an agnostic.

Look up agnostic - It means you're smart enough to know that happenstance doesn't just invent something so finely tuned and intricately and ingeniously designed, but not dumb enough to try to figure out what it is.
 

As with the case with the Yucatan asteroid, it took more than single instances of evidence, and it took more than just single individuals, to sway the consensus of scientific opinion, unless it's already been invalidated.

I'll be totally honest, I don't know enough of the details to render a meaningful opinion as to the validity or invalidity of the page of YouTube videos you've linked.
 
All I can say is . . . I am no longer surprised by the replies pertaining to evolution. Bodhi asks a very simple question; "What makes Creationism believable?"
The answer; "The meticulousness and precision of design . . .."
Now, for the average reader, this answer would imply that the person answering believes in Creationism. Yet the very last sentence used in the reply is, "I'm agnostic, which means: I DON'T KNOW."
Perhaps I am the one confused here . . . but I do not think so, because sKiTzo also believes in evolution, but only to a certain extent.

So; evolution exists, but not as grand as the science says. God may or may not exist . . . but for sure, he, she, or the aliens created life, as proven by a process of elimination (screw science). Which means we eliminate all the repetitive observations & tests that lead to the generally accepted Theory of Evolution . . . it may as well be gravity . . . we all know that hasn't been proven either.

Fossil record? It means nothing. Dating methods and rates of decay? Means nothing. Geology? Nothing. Molecular genetics and biology? Meaningless. Mitochondrial DNA, bottleneck, observation and testing are nothing when compared to "The only evidence of evolution we've seen . . .." And this coming from someone who isn't sure God exists, but we have souls, and creationism is more believable than science. Once again, is it I who is confused or you? I'm sorry, but if your reply was a person, it would be a walking contradiction.

The arrogance of man requires that a "conclusion" be arrived at, where, due to "not enough information given", it remains impossible to arrive at any such conclusion. My view is simple, and is derived from the information that we do have. You say I'm confused, yet your view postulates with nothing but an implied doctrine.
 
As with the case with the Yucatan asteroid, it took more than single instances of evidence, and it took more than just single individuals, to sway the consensus of scientific opinion, unless it's already been invalidated.

I'll be totally honest, I don't know enough of the details to render a meaningful opinion as to the validity or invalidity of the page of YouTube videos you've linked.

I linked to one video that is hosted by youtube. You don't really think I meant for you to watch the other videos on the page, do you? It's a 5 min. clip of a documentary that goes into plenty of details. "Youtube" has nothing to do with the production of the videos that are uploaded to them, as you implied. It's a platform that hosts the video. That's all. Nothing more.

If you watched the 5 min. clip you shouldn't be short on details. This archaeologist who thought "wow, I've made this amazing discovery that changes what we've thought for so long", had no idea that this would get her "blackballed" from archaeology. That's not how it's supposed to be. I'm angered by it.
 
I linked to one video that is hosted by youtube. You don't really think I meant for you to watch the other videos on the page, do you? It's a 5 min. clip of a documentary that goes into plenty of details. "Youtube" has nothing to do with the production of the videos that are uploaded to them, as you implied. It's a platform that hosts the video. That's all. Nothing more.

If you watched the 5 min. clip you shouldn't be short on details. This archaeologist who thought "wow, I've made this amazing discovery that changes what we've thought for so long", had no idea that this would get her "blackballed" from archaeology. That's not how it's supposed to be. I'm angered by it.

Hard to really know what exactly is going on in this case. To balance this out fairly, would need to see rebuttals offered from others in the field. I've looked around and have not found any rebuttals for these findings.

Even if her science process was so poor as to skew her results that massively, being blackballed for life is still very harsh.
 
It isn't just a theory... it is a scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The problem is that once some of the Bible is factually proven to be false then the validity of the rest of the Bible can reasonably be questioned. Since it was written hundreds of years after Jesus by different people at different times with exact quotes I think that it is more than reasonable to think that the Bible fictitious.

my dear, if you are aware what the Bible is about you wouldn't talk about the correctness of the text. The biggest value of that text lies in its implicit nature . You should not search the facts in it, you will never find them. If you read my comment above that is how i interpret the creation text and it is how i feel it to be in accordance with evolution, which i am not denying to be a plausible scientific theory( yet not fully argumentative ) after all, lets be honest, we have no god damned idea from where everything had came from and how we approached till today in current forms, only we know is that we all have right to assume, present hypothesis , make theories, or just believe what seems relevant for us.
 
my dear, if you are aware what the Bible is about you wouldn't talk about the correctness of the text. The biggest value of that text lies in its implicit nature . You should not search the facts in it, you will never find them. If you read my comment above that is how i interpret the creation text and it is how i feel it to be in accordance with evolution, which i am not denying to be a plausible scientific theory( yet not fully argumentative ) after all, lets be honest, we have no god damned idea from where everything had came from and how we approached till today in current forms, only we know is that we all have right to assume, present hypothesis , make theories, or just believe what seems relevant for us.

I don'tsearch for facts because there are none... it is a fable about morals. All good. No big deal...
 
I do not reject it. Much evidence supports it, so it'd be kinda strange to do so.
I don't reject the possibility of a creator, either. No evidence for that, really, but if such an entity exists it could as easily hide such evidence as it could create it.

I've occasionally thought that there's no real conflict between the two explanations, except what people make up because they want to disagree with one or the other.
 
Back
Top Bottom