The Instigator
cjm324
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jrhernan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evolution vs Religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,649 times Debate No: 37172
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)

 

cjm324

Pro

Why is it that evolution should even be debated? Don't we have enough evidence to prove that evolution is a thing its not something that can be false or a theory its the cold hard truth! But yet I find a pattern of religious people choosing to not accept this? Why? is it because you are simply uninformed or brainwashed into believing a book that was written thousand of years ago filled with half rubbish? The more science research we do the more we find the 'Bible' to be less true and total garbage?
jrhernan

Con

The Theory of Evolution is exactly what it's called--a theory. By it's very own definition it has not been proven as fact.

We live today in a very secular world which believes science can explain everything. Science will never be able to explain everything. If anything has been proven throughout the history of the world, is that when science makes a discovery, it also discovers there is a lot more we don't understand. Only an omnipotent God understands it all.

I'm not trying to discredit the importance of scientific knowledge, just trying to make the point that it will never explain everything, including our existence. Science tells us the WHAT behind everything, but never the WHY behind it.

Something I'd like you to think about: The purpose of anything is only known in the mind of the creator of the thing.
Debate Round No. 1
cjm324

Pro

I agree with you?? That is exactly what I believe as well. I think religion is great with helping individuals finding themselves in life and having a fresh start! But can we not now having proof of evolution accept the two ideas together?
jrhernan

Con

jrhernan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
cjm324

Pro

cjm324 forfeited this round.
jrhernan

Con

jrhernan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
cjm324

Pro

cjm324 forfeited this round.
jrhernan

Con

jrhernan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Absolutely Floyd,
Evolution has essentially nothing to do with religion, nor does it in any way attempt to prove religion wrong, Evolution does not concern itself with such objectives.
Many old Earth Religions (Catholics, Protestants, Islam, Buddhism, etc..) have no issue with Evolution.
It is only the ludicrously funny Young Earth Creationists (Christian and Islam Fundamentalists) which have an issue with Evolution.
Evolution does not try to explain "Origins", it is only concerned with the processes involved in changes and modification of organisms through Adaptation, Mutation, Genetic Expression, etc.....
How life arrived on planet Earth is not any concern of Evolution.
Young Earth Creationists wrongly claim that Evolution is against Creation, when it is not.
Old Earth Creationists are fine with the concept that their God initiated life (created the first self replicating Cells), designed the laws of Evolution and simply let the process take control.
Evolution has absolutely with the Old Earth Creationists, in fact, most scientists working in the fields of Evolution are Old Earth Creationists, there is absolutely no conflict between their work and faith.
Posted by floyd334 3 years ago
floyd334
The problem here is that evolution does not fully insist that there is no God, all that happened is that it proved one thong about religion wrong, you may not have noticed but religious people are stubborn and don't like to be wrong. How do you deny the existence of dinosaurs?
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Well typed, Sagey. Well typed!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
True dawndawndawndawn, guessing that there once was nothing is a little ridiculous, if a god existed, there never was nothing. It would be extremely irrational to even consider a god could produce anything from a complete and total vacuum, except for itself.
It is also ridiculously irrational to consider that this god is in the image of Man. Though if it was in the image of Woman, imagine all the sexist believers saying "Come On God, Show Us Your Tits!". LOL :-D
Such an image would be extremely impractical within a vacuum.

Though psychologists all realize that the whole "Man in god's Image" thing was just ludicrous male egotism/narcissism on the part of the scribe/prophet/Loon.

Though Catholic Traditionalists who strictly believe in Creation, where the Catholic Church actually supports Evolution are actually worse than Young Earth Creationists, when it comes to lack of intelligence and living in a delusional fantasy.

Young Earth Creationists are great for Atheism, because their highly evident, somewhat childish, completely Irrational Wrongness, makes Christianity look unbelievably Stupid.

Catholicism practices a lot of deception, Apologetic Nonsense, in an attempt to color their complete WRONGNESS as merely a difference of opinion, rather than a stupid misconception of reality.
Apologetic stupidity is what Thomas Aquinas and similar Theological idiots practices.
Basically, the use of Apologetics is telling lies to defend the blatant stupidity in Catholic Theology.
Definitions: Theology (pondering the mind of God) or "Pondering Porkies".
Apologetics: Defending Theological Nonsense: "Porkies for Porky Ponderers".
LOL :-D~
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Assuming that there was once nothing is just guessing.
There is no evidence that there ever was nothing
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
jrhernan Simply studying the brain and the frontal lobes in particular will answer all of your questions
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
BTW: A colleague just asked: "What if the "Big Bang Theory" is defeated.

My and likely most scientists would simply answer: "Another more scientifically sound Theory would replace "Big Bang Theory".
http://www.infoplease.com...
http://discovermagazine.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

These theories will all get to first base, before Creationism (Intelligent Design)
Intelligent Design won't even get to pick up a bat.
Why? It isn't even a Theory!
It's an extremely Naive Argument at Best!

Aye M8z! :-D~
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
LOL! To a knowledgeable Evolutionist, the term Macro-Evolution really does not Exist.
If you are talking about the evolving of different Phenotypes, (Physical Appearances), these are all simply extensions of Evolution of Genotypes, or what Creationists call Micro-Evolution.
If you look at Humans from the Scientific Point-Of-View, we are Essentially Still Primates (or Apes), There is no realistic traits that make us a totally Distinct Kind, like Creationists like to believe out of their silly Delusional Stance.
The aspects that make us so Different are not Physical, but purely Cultural.
We have language, which gives us the ability to communicate abstract concepts (like Heaven/Religion) like no other Ape, this also enables highly descriptive and abstract Self Talk, which allows us to reflect and categorize ourselves within our own minds (Self Awareness).
Essentially we are just Apes with Culture!
Nothing more, nothing Less.
Aye M8z! :-D
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 3 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
Macro-Evolution is false and there is no evidence for it
Posted by jrhernan 3 years ago
jrhernan
Find in this article the major difference between animals and humans:

In their activities and interests, humans and animals have several characteristics in common:

Animals eat. Human beings also have to eat.
Animals sleep. Human beings also need sleep.
Animals have sex to procreate. Humans also have sex.
Animals defend themselves; they fight. Human beings also have to defend themselves.

Despite the similarities, there is a fundamental difference between human beings and animals. What is that difference?

The distinction between the human form of life and the animal form of life is not that humans sleep on beds and animals sleep on the ground; it"s not that humans walk on two legs and many animals walk on four legs; it"s not that humans eat at a dining table with utensils and napkins while animals just eat with their mouth to the ground in some way. Humans are not meant to simply be refined animals. There is a much deeper and meaningful difference between humans and animals.

Beyond the activities humans and animals have in common (eating, sleeping, mating, and defending), human beings have a fifth faculty: the intelligence to inquire into the truth of our existence:

Who am I?
Why am I here? What is the purpose of my existence?
Why am I suffering?
How can I liberate myself from this suffering condition?

It is this extraordinarily valuable ability to be introspective"to question the meaning and purpose of our existence and endeavor to find a solution to human suffering"that sets humans apart from animals.

To use a "muscle" analogy, a person who has very big muscles can pick up a 100-pound bag of rice. But a five-year old lacks the muscles to pick up that 100-pound bag. In the less evolved condition, when a person is in the animal form of life, he doesn"t have the spiritual muscles to be introspective and to make spiritual advancement.

If a person is born in the human form of life but doesn"t use that spiritual muscle"doesn"t take
No votes have been placed for this debate.