• 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!

Homosexuality, Heterosexuality and the Choices in Between

Jek4141 said:
And believing in something we can't see is... what exactly? Because, when Christians say that about God, they're called idiots. However, when it's said about evolution, people treat it as science? Seems a bit partisan to me.
Click to expand...

There is actual evidence of evolution, from fossils, etc. There is no evidence of god.
 
Jek4141 said:
Newton's Law of Universal Gavitation: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/yba/CygX1_mass/gravity/more.html
Click to expand...
you can say that it's a law over and over and over it doesn't mean that it is not theoretical.

How does the fossil record date fossils. A legitimate question, that I want you to answer, in your own words.
Click to expand...
it doesn't date them precisely it gives us an idea of the order in which they existed and that's based on the depth and the layers of sediment they find them in.
 
Jek4141 said:
1st, but they are still puppies. This is exactly what I said before. Mircoevolution does not constitute macroevolution over time.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they weren't puppies but way to misunderstand everything I stated. Preps and 15 million Generations they will look different. Is there is no such thing is microevolution and macro-evolution it's just evolution.

It's odd that you would accept it over a short period of time about you have to because it's been proven but you think it disappears over a long period of time why is that?

2nd, evolving to life from nothing and being made up by nonliving components and given life by a living Creator are not the same thing.
Click to expand...
Life didn't come from nothing it came from the primordial soup. The theory of evolution does not say it came from nothing. Even if a creator made life who's to say he didn't do it this way?
 
Jek4141 said:
Just like I'm bound to evolve into something new over 80 million years?
Click to expand...

You misunderstand evolution individual doesn't evolve they are but a step on the evolutionary process if you breeed and your Offspring breeds on and on and on and on and on then we might see some differences between you and your latest ancestor.
 
Jek4141 said:
You talk an awful lot without giving proof. If yours is so irrefutable, why not use it for once?
Click to expand...

Never said proof I said evidence. We've been working on this Theory for over 100 years evidence for it it's not proof but it's evidence. I don't feel I need to provide you with evidence of evolution that's like providing you with evidence of gravity. You're the one denying it you're the one with an outrageous Clan so you need to provide evidence of yours.
 
RAMOSS said:
Do know know what that scientific definition of biological evoltuion is?? If so, please give it here, so I know you know what you are talking about.

If you knew what the definition was, you would know your post was 100% totally incorrect.
Click to expand...

Biological evolution as taught in schools is the theory that all organisms evolved from an original unicellular organism, which even further evolved from abiotic forces, somehow. The organisms that evolved continued to split and diversify over millions of years into the species that we see today.

That is macroevolution, the evolution of one species into another, and it has no scientific merit. Instead, scientists cite examples of microevolution, diversity among a particular genus, such as dogs, into different species. I won’t debate that a wolf, a hound, and a dachund all probably came from the same type of organism, but I believe that organism was a dog, not a fish, or a reptile, or a bird, but a dog. I believe a polar bear, which has adapted to an arctic environment, and a brown bear, more suited to the forests, are not the same species, and have different characteristics, but both are bears, and both came from a type of bear beforehand, not some other organism.

So please, tell me, how was I scientifically incorrect?
 
minnie616 said:
I believe in Sciece and I believe God.

It is possible to believe in fact many of the Bible’s so called miracles have a scientific explanation.

Take the story Mary and cousin Elizabeth for example:

From women in the Bible. Net:

Elizabeth's Story




ELIZABETH, John the Baptist's mother protected her cousin Mary


Normal, natural occurances and explanations happen in the Bible ...
It does not mean they are not miracles.

Was it not miraculous that at very moment Mary spoke to her cousin Elizabeth ( whom we presume have not spoken together for quite some time ) was the first time she felt her unborn kick?

You have to remember Elizabeth and her husband were old and she was past the childbearing age and yet by a mircle she was expecting.
She had to be very worried about her pregnancy and if everything was going well.
When she felt the kicking she must of been overjoyed and relived that all was well with her pregnancy.


Take the story of Moses and turning the sea blood red.

Red tide can turn the oceans a red color and kill the fish and other sea cheaters because s it robs them of oxygen.

From:



Red tide outbreak killing fish off Florida Gulf Coast - Sun Sentinel


But even if was red tide and not blood is any less of a miracle that it occurred when Moses put his staff in the water?

And the day turned night...solar eclipse possibly?
Click to expand...

I don’t quite understand your point here. If you could clarify, I would be grateful.
 
enderpotato00 said:
There is actual evidence of evolution, from fossils, etc. There is no evidence of god.
Click to expand...

A fossil only proves that something died. You have no way of measuring how long ago it died, or that its species evolved into something else
 
CLAX1911 said:
you can say that it's a law over and over and over it doesn't mean that it is not theoretical.

it doesn't date them precisely it gives us an idea of the order in which they existed and that's based on the depth and the layers of sediment they find them in.
Click to expand...

PRECISELY! It tells us the order, but not an exact date! If there is no exact date to the fossils, then what proof is there that they were alive millions of years ago rather than thousands?

Also, if the theory is proven to be true, it is a law. Yes, it relies on a theory, but due to it being proven, it was adopted as a law, unlike evolution, which thankfully remains a theory, but I digress
 
CLAX1911 said:
I didn't say they weren't puppies but way to misunderstand everything I stated. Preps and 15 million Generations they will look different. Is there is no such thing is microevolution and macro-evolution it's just evolution.

It's odd that you would accept it over a short period of time about you have to because it's been proven but you think it disappears over a long period of time why is that?


Life didn't come from nothing it came from the primordial soup. The theory of evolution does not say it came from nothing. Even if a creator made life who's to say he didn't do it this way?
Click to expand...

First, I accept it over the short period of time because it is the only thing that can be proven. Humans haven’t been studying animals for millions of years in order to mark their evolutionary changes. If I burn a piece of wood, it doesn’t disappear; the components of the wood are still present between the gases of the fire and the embers and ashes, but those components won’t be made into steel. Similarly, if I crossbreed puppies, the components from both parents’ species are still there in the genetic material, but the genetic information for any other type of species is not there, and will not ever enter the DNA at any point during the pup’s life and the lives of its children, because it will never reproduce with other animals, and without any other genetic information, there is no way for the evolution to occur.

Second, the theoretical primordial soup was not alive, was it? Therefore, the organism, though made from it, did not gain life from it. Rather, God, who is Life, gave us His life when He created us. And as to how he did it, Genesis clearly states that man was made by God from dust and given life by God breathing the breath of life into his nostrils
 
Jek4141 said:
Biological evolution as taught in schools is the theory that all organisms evolved from an original unicellular organism, which even further evolved from abiotic forces, somehow. The organisms that evolved continued to split and diversify over millions of years into the species that we see today.

That is macroevolution, the evolution of one species into another, and it has no scientific merit. Instead, scientists cite examples of microevolution, diversity among a particular genus, such as dogs, into different species. I won’t debate that a wolf, a hound, and a dachund all probably came from the same type of organism, but I believe that organism was a dog, not a fish, or a reptile, or a bird, but a dog. I believe a polar bear, which has adapted to an arctic environment, and a brown bear, more suited to the forests, are not the same species, and have different characteristics, but both are bears, and both came from a type of bear beforehand, not some other organism.

So please, tell me, how was I scientifically incorrect?
Click to expand...

That is not the definition of evolution. That is part of the process of that occurs because of evolution, but that is not the definition of evolution. Can you cite the definition?

If you can't do it in 10 words or less, it's not the definition.
 
Jek4141 said:
A fossil only proves that something died. You have no way of measuring how long ago it died, or that its species evolved into something else
Click to expand...
Carbon dating. Ever heard of it?
 
Jek4141 said:
Biological evolution as taught in schools is the theory that all organisms evolved from an original unicellular organism, which even further evolved from abiotic forces, somehow. The organisms that evolved continued to split and diversify over millions of years into the species that we see today.

That is macroevolution, the evolution of one species into another, and it has no scientific merit. Instead, scientists cite examples of microevolution, diversity among a particular genus, such as dogs, into different species. I won’t debate that a wolf, a hound, and a dachund all probably came from the same type of organism, but I believe that organism was a dog, not a fish, or a reptile, or a bird, but a dog. I believe a polar bear, which has adapted to an arctic environment, and a brown bear, more suited to the forests, are not the same species, and have different characteristics, but both are bears, and both came from a type of bear beforehand, not some other organism.

So please, tell me, how was I scientifically incorrect?
Click to expand...

Krikey. That tired old bull**** yet again.

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
CB901: No Macroevolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

You're quite welcome. No need to thank me.
 
Jek4141 said:
PRECISELY! It tells us the order, but not an exact date! If there is no exact date to the fossils, then what proof is there that they were alive millions of years ago rather than thousands?
Click to expand...
The Way We Date things gives it a time frame.

Also, if the theory is proven to be true, it is a law. Yes, it relies on a theory, but due to it being proven, it was adopted as a law, unlike evolution, which thankfully remains a theory, but I digress
Click to expand...
If a theory has been proven true it is a fact not a law. A law of physics is a progression from a theoretical place if physics then gravity.
 
Jek4141 said:
First, I accept it over the short period of time because it is the only thing that can be proven. Humans haven’t been studying animals for millions of years in order to mark their evolutionary changes. If I burn a piece of wood, it doesn’t disappear; the components of the wood are still present between the gases of the fire and the embers and ashes, but those components won’t be made into steel. Similarly, if I crossbreed puppies, the components from both parents’ species are still there in the genetic material, but the genetic information for any other type of species is not there, and will not ever enter the DNA at any point during the pup’s life and the lives of its children, because it will never reproduce with other animals, and without any other genetic information, there is no way for the evolution to occur.

Second, the theoretical primordial soup was not alive, was it? Therefore, the organism, though made from it, did not gain life from it. Rather, God, who is Life, gave us His life when He created us. And as to how he did it, Genesis clearly states that man was made by God from dust and given life by God breathing the breath of life into his nostrils
Click to expand...

First you don't think a bunch of short periods of time in consecutive order equates to a longer period of time ?

Humans don't need to have studied animals for millions of years to put together a working theory of evolution.

Evolution is not Alchemy so therefore your statement about a piece of wood not turning into the steel when you burn it doesn't seem relevant.

When an animal reproduces with other animals outside of its species and the case of up horse and a donkey the animal born in this case of mule is not an evolutionary step it is hybridization so I agree with you hybridization does not prove evolution. No other species DNA needs to be added to the genetic code in order for the genetic code to evolve. It's simply happens every time a new individual is conceived.

The primordial soup is really a hypothesis for the origin of life and thus it's not really relevant with regard to Evolution Evolution didn't start occurring until life was here.

It is not my intent to offend you or belittle your religion, but Genesis is not a theory it is most certainly not in competition with evolution. The only thing you have supporting Genesis is Genesis itself words on a page you have absolutely no observations you have absolutely no examples it's essentially telling me that horse-drawn carriages are made out of pumpkins because that's what it says in Cinderella.

Again I don't mean to belittle your faith, but when you use it to try and talk politics and suggest that it denounces science you're putting it on a butcher block.

I love Cinderella it's a fantastic story but horse-drawn carriages don't have to be made out of pumpkins in order for it to be a fantastic story or to gain a moral from it.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is not the definition of evolution. That is part of the process of that occurs because of evolution, but that is not the definition of evolution. Can you cite the definition?

If you can't do it in 10 words or less, it's not the definition.
Click to expand...

It's like he doesn't understand how these theories are different from one another. Primordial soup is a hypothesis for the origin of life not how life evolves.

Any confuses hybridization with evolution. When I grew up the school's the science classes only taught evolution and that's in Texas.

Are there really places where they don't teach them this?
 
Jek4141 said:
A fossil only proves that something died. You have no way of measuring how long ago it died, or that its species evolved into something else
Click to expand...

Well the fossil itself isn't the only thing used to determine when something was alive the carbon decay is used also the place where it was found is used what it's made out of and so forth.
 
Jek4141 said:
Biological evolution as taught in schools is the theory that all organisms evolved from an original unicellular organism, which even further evolved from abiotic forces, somehow. The organisms that evolved continued to split and diversify over millions of years into the species that we see today.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Biological evolution does not include a theory for the origin of life. The fact that life exists strongly suggests it has an origin.

So the focus on the origin of life from "abiotic sources" is not at all part of the evolution theory.

That is macroevolution, the evolution of one species into another, and it has no scientific merit.
Click to expand...
There is no micro and macro evolution. There is supporting evidence for it.

Instead, scientists cite examples of microevolution, diversity among a particular genus, such as dogs, into different species. I won’t debate that a wolf, a hound, and a dachund all probably came from the same type of organism, but I believe that organism was a dog, not a fish, or a reptile, or a bird, but a dog. I believe a polar bear, which has adapted to an arctic environment, and a brown bear, more suited to the forests, are not the same species, and have different characteristics, but both are bears, and both came from a type of bear beforehand, not some other organism.
Click to expand...
so if we multiplied the tome it took for bears to diversify by say 50,000 you wouldn't think those diversification would continue?

So please, tell me, how was I scientifically incorrect?
Click to expand...
The concept that evolution can only occur over a short period of time but not a long one. When you claim that evolution has no scientific merit. And when you include the origin of life as integral to evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom