• 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 Believe in Creationism?

Do You Belive In Creationsm?

  • Yes I do - The Biblical version

    Votes: 2 3.7%

  • Yes I do - "Intelligent Design" - God created everything

    Votes: 8 14.8%

  • No - I believe in the Theory of Evolution (Darwinism)

    Votes: 35 64.8%

  • None of the above - please explain

    Votes: 9 16.7%
  • Total voters
    54
RightOfCenter said:
That assumptions should be kept within the realm of observable stimuli.
Click to expand...

Three things:

1. That precept would rule out evolution since its very lengthy nature means it cannot ever be directly observed.
2. There should be no assumptions regarding the origin of the money in the given example since there has been no statement regarding the origins of said money
3. The whole point about assumptions is completely unrelated to the particular discussion regarding facts that was being made.


I'm not arguing against evolution as a fact. I believe evolution is a fact.

But I acknowledge that I might be wrong in my beliefs, and if so, then evolution could not be a fact.
 
Tucker Case said:
1. That precept would rule out evolution since its very lengthy nature means it cannot ever be directly observed.
.
Click to expand...

I did not mean to say that it was necessary to observe it directly as it happens, those this is useful. I mean more that we can observe changes over time through the fossil record and make the best logical guess as to how it happened.
 
I believe in intelligent design, but that doesn't mean it had to be G-d. It could have been alien intelligence.
 
Tucker Case said:
1. That precept would rule out evolution since its very lengthy nature means it cannot ever be directly observed.
Click to expand...

I know that you are not anti-evolution, but I would like to point out that evolution has, in fact, been directly observed.

Source [Ars Technica | Tracking adaptation as bacteria evolve]

Richard Lenski has made a living watching bacteria grow, and it has now got him into the National Academies of Science. Lenski has turned patience into a virtue by starting an experiment in 1988, and continuing it to this very day: growing E. coli under poor conditions and following how they evolve in response. In that time, 12 individual lines of bacteria have gone through 44,000 generations, with sample populations frozen down every 500 generations. The experiment has not only allowed him to track the evolution of the bacteria, but to reconstruct its history through these frozen samples.

His election to the Academy gives him the right to publish a paper of his choosing, and he chose a good topic. The bacteria are growth-constrained by low levels of glucose, and most lines have evolved so that they burn through the glucose as quickly as possible, then wait for the next daily infusion. About 33,000 generations in, however, one line of bacteria did something else entirely: it began to digest the large amounts of citrate present in the media. This is more startling than it sounds, as E. coli is sometimes defined by its inability to metabolize citrate.

A quick look into the frozen stocks revealed the citrate-eaters first appeared at about 31,000 generations. They began to grow at the expense of their normal cousins, but then dropped again as the sucrose-eaters adapted a bit. By 33,000 generations, however, a further adaptation sent the citrate-eaters on the road to dominance.
Click to expand...

As a side note, this experiment aroused the ire of the always amusing Conservapedia, which proceeded to become a part of one of the most hilarious examples of actual experts spanking internet "experts" that I've ever seen. I would highly recommend reading Lenski's exchange with the site's founder
 
Kernel Sanders said:
I know that you are not anti-evolution, but I would like to point out that evolution has, in fact, been directly observed.

Source [Ars Technica | Tracking adaptation as bacteria evolve]



As a side note, this experiment aroused the ire of the always amusing Conservapedia, which proceeded to become a part of one of the most hilarious examples of actual experts spanking internet "experts" that I've ever seen. I would highly recommend reading Lenski's exchange with the site's founder
Click to expand...

OK, now that is just cool! :mrgreen:
 
And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion.
Click to expand...

:rofl I doubt I'll find quite so effective a way of saying "you're an idiot" for a long, long time.
 
Gibberish said:
Great, so facts do change. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Not to plagarize, but...

Are you still not getting it?

The fact is you had a dollar, this will never ever change. Just because today you do not have the same dollar is irrelevant to the fact that you did.
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm going to guess that Radical Ron's probably Jewish, and by not putting in the vowel he's not taking the lord's name in vain.

If I guessed wrong, Ron, I apologize.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that always seemed strange to me. I mean, we all still know exactly who Ron is referring to. But hey, whatever works for you.
 
Tucker Case said:
It's not that strange to me. It's a respect thing. I actually get it.
Click to expand...
I get the respect thing, I honestly do. My feelings are that God probably does not mind you saying his name if you are mentioning him. Ron wasn't cursing God or saying "God Dammit", he was merely mentioning the Lord. Anyway, I have no issue with it, I simply found it interesting. :)
 
Gibberish said:
Please attempt to follow the conversation before you join in, especially if your point is to be condescending.
Click to expand...

Umm I know exactly what you are saying and you are indeed wrong.

Gibberish said:
My conversation with Goobieman showed that Tucker Case's point that facts do not change was semi-inaccurate. Me having a dollar was a fact at the time and now it is not, which is a change of fact.
Click to expand...

It does not change the fact in any way. At that moment in time you had a dollar. This will never ever change.

Gibberish said:
I say "semi" because from Tucker Case's mentality that fact that "I have a dollar" never actually existed as it was a temporary state of reality and not really a fact. To follow this though we must accept that nothing we say or do is indeed a fact until 100% hindsight is achieved.
Click to expand...

Give me a break, that is nothing but philosophical mental masturbation.

Fact: You have a dollar at this moment in time.

Fact: That moment in time is now passed and will never be different.

We cannot change the past, period. So anything from the past which is a fact to begin with will never change. If it can change it was never a fact.
 
EgoffTib said:
Yeah, that always seemed strange to me. I mean, we all still know exactly who Ron is referring to. But hey, whatever works for you.
Click to expand...

It's like when they put FUGET YOU on cable. Like we don't know what he's trying to say.
 
Einstein was an agnostic. He did allude to a "superior spirit" being manifest in nature but this was not an endorsement of theism.

Einstein was not a man who wished to be boxed in by movements or belief systems. His truest wisdom was in knowing that we know nothing. He was a humble man and I doubt you would find him insulting others on the basis of their religious beliefs, nor would you find him making absolutist claims on anything metaphysical. He appreciated the mystery of creation and our small place in it. He didn't try to confine it or master it, he simply stood in awe of it...
 
Family Guy said:
So you do not believe in evolution? The bible says the Earth is only 9000 years old....so do you think that Dinosaurs are a myth or that they lived with man?

I'm curious as to your beliefs. Thanks!
Click to expand...

The Bible does not state that the earth is 9000 years old. If one goes by Biblical Timelines / Genealogies, then the Bible states that the world, and entire Universe for that matter, is around 6500 to 7000 years old.
 
Last edited:
Also, this poll is flawed. The first two options are questions of belief, in that one has to choose to believe them or not.

The third option is a question of acceptance, in that one either accepts the enormous body of empirical evidence in support of it, or they don't. Otherwise, the only reason why someone would not accept Evolution, is that:

1. They are largely ignorant of almost everything we know about life sciences.

or

2. They are literalistic in their religious beliefs and thus will not accept mainstream science if it seems to contradict their personal religious beliefs.

or

3. They have some personal / psychological issue with the thought of having evolved.
 
Ethereal said:
Einstein was an agnostic. He did allude to a "superior spirit" being manifest in nature but this was not an endorsement of theism.

Einstein was not a man who wished to be boxed in by movements or belief systems. His truest wisdom was in knowing that we know nothing. He was a humble man and I doubt you would find him insulting others on the basis of their religious beliefs, nor would you find him making absolutist claims on anything metaphysical. He appreciated the mystery of creation and our small place in it. He didn't try to confine it or master it, he simply stood in awe of it...
Click to expand...

Well said :mrgreen:
 
Tucker Case said:
What fact changes? You had a dollar on Feb 15 2009. (Which was today, yesterday)

Giving the dollar away doesn't change that fact. You will ALWAYS have had that dollar on Feb 15, 2009.

Saying today doesn't make it accurate. Today is an amorphous idea representing the current day.

Saying "I have a dollar today" literally means "I have a dollar on Feb 16, 2009". It doesn't imply anything more than that.


Stop playing word games.
Click to expand...

Reading back through I think I see what your saying.

We can declare something today as "fact", because as far as we know it is fact, but if we discover something in the future that eliminates that fact and existed, unknowingly, when the initial declaration was made then the "fact" was never a fact.

Example
Fact: The Moon is made of cheese
Change: It is proven at a later date that the moon is and always had been made of rock.

Initial fact was never a fact.

If something is declared as "fact" but later something changes, that didn't exist previously, then the old fact is still a fact at that time but today is not a fact because the environment change.
Example
Fact: I have a $1 bill.
Change: 2 days later I give my $1 bill away

Initial fact is still a fact at that moment but is no longer presently a fact.

Does that sum it up correctly?
 
Gibberish said:
Reading back through I think I see what your saying.

We can declare something today as "fact", because as far as we know it is fact, but if we discover something in the future that eliminates that fact and existed, unknowingly, when the initial declaration was made then the "fact" was never a fact.

Example
Fact: The Moon is made of cheese
Change: It is proven at a later date that the moon is and always had been made of rock.

Initial fact was never a fact.

If something is declared as "fact" but later something changes, that didn't exist previously, then the old fact is still a fact at that time but today is not a fact because the environment change.
Example
Fact: I have a $1 bill.
Change: 2 days later I give my $1 bill away

Initial fact is still a fact at that moment but is no longer presently a fact.

Does that sum it up correctly?
Click to expand...

Yes. Perfectly summed up. Thank you for that.
 
Family Guy said:
Thought I'd get a read on who in this community believes in Creationism which is defined as:

Let us know what you believe.
Click to expand...

Your poll is bad.

One believes in biblical creationism/Intelligent design because they are faith based ideas devoid of any empirical evidence whatsoever.

Evolution however, is a science that requires understanding of the principles, merits and numerous experiments all concluding that it is likely to be true.

One believes in YEC/ID.

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