• 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!

Evolution or Creation? - What do you rather believe in? (1 Viewer)

Evolution or Creation? - What do you rather believe in?

  • evolution

    Votes: 24 82.8%
  • creation

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • don't care

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Total voters
    29

Rumpel

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
39,988
Reaction score
7,652
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The rejection of evolution by religious groups (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) involves an ongoing, recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. Species were once widely believed to be fixed products of divine creation in accordance with creationism, but since the mid-19th century evolution by natural selection has been established by the scientific community as an empirical scientific fact.

Rejection of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia

Let's have a poll.
 
I have just voted for evolution.
 
Evolution is one of the most verified theories out there. I'd say it's no longer even up for debate among those with functioning brains.

I agree! :peace
 
5 out of 5 have already voted for evolution. :)
 
Evolution, of course.

No "God" would have ever "created" the monstrous beings that we label as "human beings."
 
I prefer to believe in the truth and when it comes to this topic and evolution is beyond doubt the truth.
 
5 out of 5 have already voted for evolution. :)

Could be because those are the only people to whom the question makes sense, but obviously the OP doesn't care. So long as it fits his agenda.
 
Do they exclude one another?

Regarding most creation myths, yes, they are mutually exclusive. In essence, however, there are gray areas worth exploring. Was DNA created, the universe, the stars, the clouds, the rains, etc?

I'd say we have enough evidence to suggest nothing on that list was "created" unless we stretch the creation myth into meaning all of existence is a series of Simulations. That's not to say it can't be.

My most recent reading suggests that existence is nothing more than information.

Today, Christoph Adami at Michigan State University in East Lansing sidesteps many of these problems by analysing the origin of life from an entirely different point of view. The basis for Adami’s new approach is the idea that life is fundamentally a phenomenon of information. This allows Adami to ignore all the messy details of chemistry and instead consider life’s most basic properties as ones determined by the nature of information and the laws of physics that govern it.

...

The key idea in Adami’s formulation is that living systems do not exist in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium but somehow maintain themselves in a state that differs from maximum entropy by a deficit that is equivalent to the information they contain. A characteristic feature of living systems is that they can maintain this difference indefinitely.

Read more:

Information Theory And The Origin of Life
 
Last edited:
Now:

evolution - 10 - 83.33%
creation - 1 - 8.33%
don't know - 0
don't care - 1 - 8.33%
 
How can creationist explain scientific evidence as in human fossils and cave drawings going back 60,000 years and further.

One argument I read from a creationist is when god created a tree, it would have rings in it the moment it was created. That is, creation of the tree would bring with it the built-in appearance of age. This far out explanation accounts for fossils, cave drawings and other scientific evidence.
 
How can creationist explain scientific evidence as in human fossils and cave drawings going back 60,000 years and further.

One argument I read from a creationist is when god created a tree, it would have rings in it the moment it was created. That is, creation of the tree would bring with it the built-in appearance of age. This far out explanation accounts for fossils, cave drawings and other scientific evidence.

Just laughable! :mrgreen:
 
Regarding most creation myths, yes, they are mutually exclusive. In essence, however, there are gray areas worth exploring. Was DNA created, the universe, the stars, the clouds, the rains, etc?

I'd say we have enough evidence to suggest nothing on that list was "created" unless we stretch the creation myth into meaning all of existence is a series of Simulations. That's not to say it can't be.

My most recent reading suggests that existence is nothing more than information.



Read more:

Information Theory And The Origin of Life

No one knows what ignited organic life, a bunch of theories all unproven. The best we can do IMHO is try to find life elsewhere in our solar system. The moons of Saturn and Jupiter
are where it might exist ..if life is found it might answer some important questions concerning life and its origins.
 
How can creationist explain scientific evidence as in human fossils and cave drawings going back 60,000 years and further.

One argument I read from a creationist is when god created a tree, it would have rings in it the moment it was created. That is, creation of the tree would bring with it the built-in appearance of age. This far out explanation accounts for fossils, cave drawings and other scientific evidence.

When it becomes an exact science, then, perhaps I'll pay more attention to the dating process...
 
When it becomes an exact science, then, perhaps I'll pay more attention to the dating process...
Is that in reference to your research of evolution or your abandoning your religious obligations?
 
Is that in reference to your research of evolution or your abandoning your religious obligations?

In reference to my search for truth...
 
In reference to my search for truth...
I didn't expect such an evasive answer I was only joking when you said you'd pay more attention to the dating process. Though it didn't quite fit because according to Rumpel's hate propaganda you're allowed to date..
 
I didn't expect such an evasive answer I was only joking when you said you'd pay more attention to the dating process. Though it didn't quite fit because according to @Rumpel's hate propaganda you're allowed to date..

I don't read his links of lies, so i have no idea what you're talking about, but I answered you truthfully...
 
When it becomes an exact science, then, perhaps I'll pay more attention to the dating process...

It is an exact science.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom