• 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
1545698_789801957711900_1233549583_n.jpg
 
Bodhisattva said:
What kind of ****ing idiot rejects Evolution? :lol:
Click to expand...

Someone on this forum said that it isn't between those who accept evolution and those who don't, but rather between those who know what it is and those who don't. That was completely true as I've never met a person who denied evolution and could accurately say in their own words what it meant.
 
Cardinal said:
Someone on this forum said that it isn't between those who accept evolution and those who don't, but rather between those who know what it is and those who don't. That was completely true as I've never met a person who denied evolution and could accurately say in their own words what it meant.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's not necessarily true. There are plenty of people who know exactly what it is but the religious mental poison in their heads keeps them from dealing with actual reality in favor of the religious fantasy that they wish were true.
 
Cephus said:
Unfortunately, it's not necessarily true. There are plenty of people who know exactly what it is but the religious mental poison in their heads keeps them from dealing with actual reality in favor of the religious fantasy that they wish were true.
Click to expand...

If you say so. I've NEVER heard a creationist accurately define evolution.
 
Cardinal said:
If you say so. I've NEVER heard a creationist accurately define evolution.
Click to expand...

I have, I've seen some that know what it is, what the evidence is, but they're supremely convinced that all of that was designed by the devil to fool Christians. Their delusion gets in the way of accepting the reality that is before their eyes. Now granted, most of the time you're right, they are ignorant, but there are an unfortunate few who ought to know better but don't.
 
I believe in science and evolution but I also believe that certain parts of the bible have some historic truth. Which parts are more accurate than others is a guess. It's also a source of many of our concepts of morality, compassion and fairness.

I do not see the Creation Story as anything but symbolic.
 
Cardinal said:
Someone on this forum said that it isn't between those who accept evolution and those who don't, but rather between those who know what it is and those who don't. That was completely true as I've never met a person who denied evolution and could accurately say in their own words what it meant.
Click to expand...

Very good point... thank you for that as I will use that logic in the future. :)
 
I am a logical thinker, and evolution is logical. So I Don't reject it.
 
Democrat152 said:
I am a logical thinker, and evolution is logical. So I Don't reject it.
Click to expand...

A Liberal who makes sense... somebody note the time and date!
 
eohrnberger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course you realize the "general scientific community" deliberately suppresses scientific data and therefore cannot be referenced. Why do they do it? We can speculate...... Is it to not ruffle the status quo? To simply not have to admit being wrong? I don't really care why, but I'm extremely pissed off about it and you should be too. We fund the research and we don't deserve to be hoodwinked on such a grand scale. Bastards.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What makes Creationism believable?
Click to expand...

The meticulousness and precision of design that is demonstrated by what has gone into making it possible for you to read this post, and everything around and within and leading up to it. The only evidence of evolution we.ve seen does seem to prove that evolution happens, but to an extent. Hands and feet becoming webbed over a very long time is a good example. There has never been or never will be evidence that a one-celled organism "evolved" into nearly perfect machines of flesh that have eyes , ears, noses, beautiful vaginas and breasts, and can be occupied and lived in by us. At the same time, creationism , therefore, I arrive at only by process of elimination. What are YOU? Where does your soul fit into all of this if we are mere evolved matter? I'm agnostic, which means: I DON'T KNOW.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What makes Creationism believable?
Click to expand...

The meticulousness and precision of design that is demonstrated by what has gone into making it possible for you to read this post, and everything around and within and leading up to it. The only evidence of evolution we've seen does seem to prove that evolution happens, but to an extent. Hands and feet becoming webbed over a very long time is a good example.
There has never been or never will be evidence that a one-celled organism "evolved" into nearly perfect machines of flesh that have eyes , ears, noses, beautiful vaginas and breasts, and can be occupied and lived in by us. At the same time, creationism , therefore, I arrive at only by process of elimination. What are YOU? Where does your soul fit into all of this if we are mere evolved matter? I'm agnostic, which means: I DON'T KNOW.
 
Bodhisattva said:
What makes Creationism believable?
Click to expand...

Science has been noted as saying that your DNA is a "blueprint". What does the dictionary say about "blueprint"? Design.

blue·print
/ˈblo͞oˌprint/ n. 1. a design plan or other technical drawing.
synonyms: plan, design, diagram, drawing, sketch, map, layout, representation
 
sKiTzo said:
The meticulousness and precision of design that is demonstrated by what has gone into making it possible for you to read this post, and everything around and within and leading up to it. The only evidence of evolution we.ve seen does seem to prove that evolution happens, but to an extent. Hands and feet becoming webbed over a very long time is a good example.
Click to expand...

Well, that pretty much sums up the debate... end of discussion. Debate over.


There has never been or never will be evidence that a one-celled organism "evolved" into nearly perfect machines of flesh that have eyes , ears, noses, beautiful vaginas and breasts, and can be occupied and lived in by us.
Click to expand...

Prove it...

At the same time, creationism , therefore, I arrive at only by process of elimination. What are YOU? Where does your soul fit into all of this if we are mere evolved matter? I'm agnostic, which means: I DON'T KNOW.
Click to expand...

And there may not be a soul... so ooops!
 
sKiTzo said:
Science has been noted as saying that your DNA is a "blueprint". What does the dictionary say about "blueprint"? Design.

blue·print
/ˈblo͞oˌprint/ n. 1. a design plan or other technical drawing.
synonyms: plan, design, diagram, drawing, sketch, map, layout, representation
Click to expand...

Science just means that a "blueprint" is a reproduction... don't get all freaked out.
 
l accept evolution and still believe in god because l think scientific facts dont contradict religions no matter what you believe to be true
 
sKiTzo said:
The meticulousness and precision of design that is demonstrated by what has gone into making it possible for you to read this post, and everything around and within and leading up to it. The only evidence of evolution we've seen does seem to prove that evolution happens, but to an extent. Hands and feet becoming webbed over a very long time is a good example.
There has never been or never will be evidence that a one-celled organism "evolved" into nearly perfect machines of flesh that have eyes , ears, noses, beautiful vaginas and breasts, and can be occupied and lived in by us. At the same time, creationism , therefore, I arrive at only by process of elimination. What are YOU? Where does your soul fit into all of this if we are mere evolved matter? I'm agnostic, which means: I DON'T KNOW.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sKiTzo said:
Of course you realize the "general scientific community" deliberately suppresses scientific data and therefore cannot be referenced. Why do they do it? We can speculate...... Is it to not ruffle the status quo? To simply not have to admit being wrong? I don't really care why, but I'm extremely pissed off about it and you should be too. We fund the research and we don't deserve to be hoodwinked on such a grand scale. Bastards.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that legitimate scientific observations and experimental results are incorporated even if they don't initially match the status quo.

A fine example is the now generally accepted asteroid strike that extincted the dinosaurs.

Before, there were a number of competing theories about what extincted the dinosaurs, pestilence, climate change among others. The Alverazes (father and son) discovered that the layer of deposited soil at the KT boundary contained an unusually high amount of Iridium, normally not found on the Earth, but prevalent in asteroids. This layer is present across wide areas on the Earth. Still not generally accepted at this point. Then the 100 mile wide impact crater was found off of the Yucatán peninsula below the ocean. These two things and probably some others, and now the asteroid strike is now generally accepted as what extincted the dinosaurs.

Which scientific data are you asserting is being suppressed?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Prove it...
Click to expand...

It's not possible to prove either way. But if you take some time and study the plant and animal kingdom, particularly the intricacies of design that is evident in the functions of the human body, and its micro mechanisms that go on without you even knowing it, you find intelligent design, and if you are reasonable and rational in your thinking, you'll find it difficult to believe that a DNA "blueprint" of design was created by "random selection" or chance. How is a one-celled organism going to randomly select anything if it doesn't think? Randomly select what? Who offers the "selection" from which to choose from? Now do you see how ridiculous it sounds?
 
sKiTzo said:
Of course you realize the "general scientific community" deliberately suppresses scientific data and therefore cannot be referenced. Why do they do it? We can speculate...... Is it to not ruffle the status quo? To simply not have to admit being wrong? I don't really care why, but I'm extremely pissed off about it and you should be too. We fund the research and we don't deserve to be hoodwinked on such a grand scale. Bastards.
Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:
Seems to me that legitimate scientific observations and experimental results are incorporated even if they don't initially match the status quo.

A fine example is the now generally accepted asteroid strike that extincted the dinosaurs.

Before, there were a number of competing theories about what extincted the dinosaurs, pestilence, climate change among others. The Alverazes (father and son) discovered that the layer of deposited soil at the KT boundary contained an unusually high amount of Iridium, normally not found on the Earth, but prevalent in asteroids. This layer is present across wide areas on the Earth. Still not generally accepted at this point. Then the 100 mile wide impact crater was found off of the Yucatán peninsula below the ocean. These two things and probably some others, and now the asteroid strike is now generally accepted as what extincted the dinosaurs.

Which scientific data are you asserting is being suppressed?
Click to expand...

Crickets.
 
sKiTzo said:
It's not possible to prove either way. But if you take some time and study the plant and animal kingdom, particularly the intricacies of design that is evident in the functions of the human body, and its micro mechanisms that go on without you even knowing it, you find intelligent design, and if you are reasonable and rational in your thinking, you'll find it difficult to believe that a DNA "blueprint" of design was created by "random selection" or chance. How is a one-celled organism going to randomly select anything if it doesn't think? Randomly select what? Who offers the "selection" from which to choose from? Now do you see how ridiculous it sounds?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom