There are 4 choices, 8 votes for Royal Blue Cuteness' debate

Evolution

the ORIGINAL topic of this debate was "human evolution and whether humans have been 'devolving and destructing morally and physically.'" PLEASE do not change the topic to suit your own interests; start your own thread elsewhere.


  • Religious Leeches.

    Firstly adressing the intial arguement, the reason scientists are addressing only evolution and not creation is that because scientists can only study so much of the universe to the point when a universal horizon can be seen, the point where light and matter disassociate. Science has not and does not proclaim it knows how life was initially created but the path of evolution.

    Now touching on religion. Firstly there have been studies of the record of the development of the Christian religion ( ill use them as a simple example.) There are stories that religion have fed their community such asthe birth of christ,the death of christ in particular his crusifier- Pontias Pilot are highly thought to be fictatious. It was not untill the 4th century when Constantine decided that the church needed structure and thus the new testament.

    To me this just shows that there are no real answers there for us and to tell you the truth i respect science more for they tell us the truth knowing and accepting they can not answer all the question we have but then again it is easier for some religion in particular to feed stories to people to subside their queeries.

    37%  Voted for by -xxstitchesxx-, TheDarknessVisible, ennoia.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • .

    evolution is a proven fact: life changes. that's ALL that evolution explains, is that life does change, and it does so by specific mechanisms: natural selection, genetic drift, random mutation, etc etc. scientists are stuck on where life came from, because life cannot just spontaneously occur from nonlife. that's where the issue gets clouded with religion, etc. being a christian myself, i would say that god created life initially, and i'm not so concerned with the "how" of evolution after that point- it's enough for me that i believe that god created life and that evolution happens. but i'm confused by the second part of your question about "devolving and destructing morally and physically." i would say that just within the past 400 years in America we've significantly improved morally and physically: we can live past 30 years of age! and instead of enslaving africans we're trying to set up better governments and healthier lifestyles for imporverished countries.

    25%  Voted for by gobuggy99, im dead - go away.
    View 3 comments
  • :

  • Life came from non-life

    For the benefit of nonscientists out there: There is no such thing as "scientific fact". As for the contention that life can not originate from non-life... why not?

    It used to be believed that organic compounds can only be created by living creatures. But now we sythesize them all the time.

    Your belief that life CAN NOT originate from non-life is nothing more than a logical proposition.

    You haven't estalished any proof. But there *is* counter evidence:

    If life can't arrive from non-life then that means life has ALWAYS existed, and yet there is lots of evidence that there was a time PRIOR to life. Specifically very old rocks lack evidence of biological processes (fossils) which can be found in rocks (but only rocks formed more recently (since the time life began)). Also fossils of many different creatures hve been found but none of those fossils date back to the earliest dawns of time. Morever the geological evidence is that the earth has not ALWAYS been compatable with life, but was previously, completely inhospitable to life: ergo logically life arose from non-life.

    In any event.. God could not have created life, if life can not arrise from non-life. Unless you are saying God is a biological organism.

    As for the suggestion that human species are "devolving and destructing morally and physically since the beginning of recorded history" I call TROLL. The poster who made that claim is trying to start a fight by offending.

    The subject of this topic is also OFFENSIVE. Scientists would not HAVE you believe anything. Scientists devise theories and test those theories for compatability with observations, the principles of logic. You dont need to have FAITH in science. Your lights turn on if you pay your electical bill. Faith does not make a scientific theory more or less reliable.

    25%  Voted for by TheDarknessVisible, ennoia.
    View 5 comments
  • :

  • BS bang theory

    Well, I have many and will actively participate in this debate. But personally I would like to hear some opinions as to how we evolved from ooze.. how certain entities supposedly evolved into symbiotic (co-dependent) relationships, and how you justify the fact that as a race we have been devolving and destructing morally and physically since the beginning of recorded history.

    Voted for by Royal Blue Cuteness.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →