• 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
Kal'Stang said:
Sporks.

See...I can say words that have nothing to do with what is quoted also.
Click to expand...

Yes, well, anything could be anything. That doesn't constitute a debate. Also, sporks can be proven to exist scientifically.
 
As Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost biologists in the entire world, put it: "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." That is, which mutations occur is random, but which ones stick around is not. Understanding the ways in which evolution is random, and the ways in which it is not, is fundamental before anyone can actually start to critique it.
 

Actually there are facts in science. For instance it is a fact that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton's Third Law of Motion. This is testable with verifiable results 100.00% of the time.

And what laymen consider as fact and theory is irrelevent to an actual fact vs theory. There is a difference between the two.

Also I'm not engaging in semantics. I'm engaging what is accurate vs what is inaccurate. To me when it comes to science there is a HUGE responsibility to state things accurately, otherwise misconceptions and lies result.
 
ecofarm said:
Yes, well, anything could be anything. That doesn't constitute a debate. Also, sporks can be proven to exist scientifically.
Click to expand...

Can't have a debate when all you do is present one word posts. Particularly when that word has nothing to do with what was stated in the post you quoted.
 

When you really examine the situation where the Americans questioned Heisenberg's theory... Do you reach the conclusion that that is equivalent to creationists questioning the theory of evolution?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Sporks.

See...I can say words that have nothing to do with what is quoted also.
Click to expand...

He was doing the thing like that history channel guy. It was relevant. Kindof.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Can't have a debate when all you do is present one word posts. Particularly when that word has nothing to do with what was stated in the post you quoted.
Click to expand...

How am I to debate nihilism? "It could be anything" is not a legitimate position.
 
I entertain the notion intellectually, without necessarily accepting it in full.

:mrgreen:
 
americanwoman said:
Yes or No?

No, I do not reject evolution.
Click to expand...

Nope. I've never seen any reason to. The idea makes intuitive sense, it has a great deal of hard evidence supporting it, and it doesn't even necessarily stand in opposition to my religious beliefs.
 
Of course I don't reject that heritable traits in a population will change and diversify over time in response to the their environment. It's readily observable, from a lab to paying attention to the world.
 
Dezaad said:
When you really examine the situation where the Americans questioned Heisenberg's theory... Do you reach the conclusion that that is equivalent to creationists questioning the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...

Creationism isn't a viable alternate theory.
 
TheNextEra said:
It appears random, but it can be by design. You cannot prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

There have been evolutionary dead-ends. Mistakes, blunders, whatever- creatures have evolved that had no chance for long-term success, for a variety of reasons. If that's part of the design process, maybe there's an element of randomness right there.
 
Morality Games said:
No, but I haven't given up on religion yet either.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's an either-or situation. Evolution only means that God isn't into micro-management. It may just be that 'God' is only a term for what was 10 seconds before the Big Bang. It may be that 'God' is a term for a spark that can only be attained by evolution. It may be that 'God' is an observer like a particle physicist who knows that simply observing an experiment affects it's outcome.
 
LowDown said:
Creationism isn't a viable alternate theory.
Click to expand...

That is not a relevant point to make in any answer to the question posed. The question posed is meant to illustrate the extent that creationists question evolution, and compare that extent and character to the Americans who questioned Heisenberg. It is irrelevant whether creationists have an alternate theory.
 

I don't think Americans were aware of Heisenberg's theory since it was wartime. That his word was law among the German physicists, and that this defeated their efforts to build a bomb, is the point.

Back at Los Alamos any joe schmoe could put forward his ideas and win the day with them if they were sound.

Enforcement of an orthodoxy is NEVER good science. Skepticism is ALWAYS the proper attitude.

Even with sacred cows like evolution. We should always be aware that a better idea might be put forward, but that ain't creationism.

Creationism advocates are religious laymen for the most part, not scientists. Most mainstream Christians don't think that scripture, poorly interpreted, trumps the physical realities of the real world.
 
No, I don't reject evolution. There's too much evidence in favor of it.
 
americanwoman said:
Yes or No?

No, I do not reject evolution.
Click to expand...
I know enough to understand that I don't know anything for sure. And then there are retards who know everything...

 
What kind of ****ing idiot rejects Evolution? :lol:
 
Judging by what our liberal friends writes, evolution in the nature does not exist.
 
LowDown said:
Creationism isn't a viable alternate theory.
Click to expand...

It's not a theory at all, it's a totally discredited and debunked hypothesis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…