The debate "Evolution is real. There is evidence for it that is varified and agreed on" was started by
October 31, 2015, 10:45 pm.
25 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
omactivate posted 9 arguments, sophistry posted 4 arguments, PsychDave posted 9 arguments, pajrc1234 posted 3 arguments, erikD9921 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Lane posted 7 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments, calebtanner posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
omactivate, sophistry, PsychDave, Yuki_Amayane, advr93, Nethersquid, pajrc1234, erikD9921, MylifeisaJoke, AstroSpace, roshni, zoeclare7, wmgreen00, Gandalf, mafiajo and 10 visitors agree.
Lane, Ryan, calebtanner, ThatDebatingGuy, historybuff, Nury, bigB, andrewkorman and 5 visitors disagree.
but the rise of other longer standing religions proves that with the right message and a charismatic leader, any cult can spread. just like Scientology. and just like Christianity.
but a very small reason
a reason christainity has survived so long is God being behind it.
In that case it is a point against Christianity since, as I have pointed out, there are religions that have survived longer including Judaism and Hinduism (which is older still). Obviously Hinduism has more of God's protection since it has lasted longer.
No its not a big reason, but it's still a small way.
But Judaism survives to this day. So longevity is not a valid reason to claim Christianity is the best faith and has God's protection.
before jesus, yes it was, after jesus it is not, because Jesus is the messiah the jews say will come.
Judaism has survived longer. Does that is the real one true faith?
I ment to say, Catholicism has survived so long with the help of God.
I'm not saying that. I apologize, my argument was not well worded and may have led you to think I said that.
Christianity is obviously the one true religion since it is the most popular.
after all, when has a majority opinion ever been wrong?
the pope is one of the most loved ever by all, especially non catholics. of course christians don't like the pope, they don't follow him. of course one religion would not believe in another religions leader.
Evolution is pretty easy to believe in, even if you ignore any evidence. Minor changes happen, which add up to new species. The fossils, which can be buried deep in the ground (so they more than likely aren't fake), always follow a specific order. This means that evolution changed most of the prehistoric animals into others, and that evolution happened all around. Also, the differences in myostatin, heart rates, cholesterol levels, etc. are the small changes that evolution has caused.
well Alex half the Christian world thinks the pope is full of crap. so 85% of the world disagrees with you. and since Islam is the fastest growing religion, it is only a matter of time until they overtake Christianity.
Could you explain that it a bit more detail?
all "evidence" for evolution is based of micro which everyone including christians believe macro however has no evidence not one.
I'm saying Christianity is the biggest because God helped us. it is not politics it is religion.
Not sure why my vote changed but that has now been fixed.
China has more people, does that mean their policies are superior to those of the US? Should the US adopt the same government structure? You are arguing that the number of people represents rightness which, as sophistry pointed out, is a fallacy.
anyone who thinks the number of adherents behind a religion makes the claims of that religion true... needs to spend more time studying fallacies and less time on this app.
let me rephrase my point. Christianity is the biggest by far. you have to combine others to pass it. the cult by the ron science guy is nowhere near Christianity and will die off soon.
Alex, your math seems to need some work. If Christianity accounts for 1/6 of the population, that means 5/6 are not. That is hardly "Christianity has as many followers as all other religions combined".
no. you're wrong. Christians make up about 30% of the planets population. if you combined all other religions it would be 70%. and that is if you lump all Christians together. only about half of Christians are Catholic. half the Christian world disagrees with alot of your beliefs. 85% of the world isn't Catholic. so I did not prove your point. if you were right and all others were wrong. then 85% of the world are following cults (70% if you decide other Christians don't count.) that is the large majority of humans. there are actually as many atheists(and agnostics and non secular) as there are catholics, fun fact.
but they are different. you proved my point, to get to numbers near Christianity. you must combine all other religoins.
1.1 billion Catholics. 7 billion total.
the point is that cults can survive and spread. if you were right and Catholics are right then all other religions are essentially cults. so about 6/7 of the world are following a cult (non Catholic religion). that should prove that cults can spread to billions.
not enough time, if in 50 years.
Christianity does and this ron religion grows to billions of followers.
I will believe you.
the church's numbers are constantly growing. they aren't going away. Christianity is the same thing. a charismatic cult leader paves the way for a religion.
the ron guy died in 1986. not nearly enough time for his teachings to die. almost 2000 years since the birthday of the church. almost 2000 years is enough time to tell. give it 50 years and that guys legacy will wear off.
Jesus is the most successful cult leader of all time. and there are lots of others. Scientology jumps to mind. it has something like 15 million followers and was made up by a mentally unstable science fiction writer. a science fiction writer can create a religion that has exploded in the amount of members. I don't see how Christianity is any different. it had a charismatic founder. after the death of the founder he is deified by his followers. L. Ron Hubbard was a basket case. his followers now number in the millions. there are movie stars that follow his teachings. why is it impossible that Jesus was just a cult leader that was successful? maybe in 1000 years L. Ron Hubbard will replace Jesus as the "Savior".
34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35And he said to them, ?Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36?For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37?After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. 38?So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; 39but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.?
Jesus's religion has been so successfull because it is from God. modern cults are not from God so they mostly fail. even those who don't trust jesus admit this.
Religion is a sham and the American people are falling for it. times have changed
The lord of the rings is based on something too. that doesn't mean frodo threw the one ring into mount doom. all stories are based on something. the problem is that based on is a very loose term. a guy named Jesus did exist. he was crucified. that is pretty much the only facts. if a Jesus was just an impressive cult leader who could do neat tricks then it is entirely plausible that a religion could spring up about him. modern cult leaders do the same thing.
@pajrc1234 I understand your argument. If we don't actually have evidence that everyone can see, then the people who made these religions are likely to have made everything up. That does make sense to me, but I feel that it is entirely possible, in fact it is likely, that these things are based upon something. We do not really know what that something is; that is the part that trips people up when analyzing religions. How could these things have actually happened? But we have seen evolution happen. So right now, the best, most logical answer to creation, even for religious people, is evolution. But the concept of God still isn't proven wrong by theory of evolution; therefore, it is still possible for God to be a real thing, and that religions, while they have certainly changed over time and been interpreted differently by different people, are still well-founded by the fact that they are actually based on something.
And you clearly have no idea what evolution is. (directed to sophistry) Evolution is when a child gets 50 percent of the father's genes and 50 percent of the mother's. Some are dominant to the other, so if there are two eye color genes, one will take over, and this happens for every gene. This produces a baby that is slightly different from the parents. This happens through generation, as the baby grows up and has kids, and it will just slightly change again. The slow process will actually change species over time, with the parents being a little less (whatever the new species is) like than the child. So the great apes, which are most likely extinct, evolved slightly to become the primates we see today, including us. Apes never gave birth to humans. It's a gross misrepresentation of evolution.
Well if it hasn't been proven yet, those who created, well, any religion was more likely making it up. They had no ABSOLUTE evidence of God existing to make their claims upon. That should be proud enough.
you clearly don't grasp evolution. it has been repeatedly explained. and you wouldn't believe it anyway since you think it is from Satan so trying to explain it to you is pointless.
if humans came from apes why don't we see apes giving birth to humans today?
evolution is a lie created by Satan to bring people away from God. everyone knows this. a better explanation of the diversity of life is offered by the scientific theory of intelligent design.
I don't rule out God creating the big bang or the spark of life, but I also don't credit him for them without proof.
The problem with categorizing God as a hypothesis is that a hypothesis has to explain observable phenomenon and make testable predictions. Religion consistently fails in both regards. The explanations offered by religious texts are often inaccurate, as we see with the creation story and the story of the flood. The predictions made tend to be so vague as to be untestable. Predictions about the end of the world are not able to be proven incorrect until the world has ended, at which point the entire debate becomes irrelevant.
Ok I agree with you @PsychDave. And I think that you are correct in saying that the church will accomodate the science eventually. I personally accept the theory of evolution. But could religion also be considered a theory? It is an attempt at an explanation for certain unknown things, which is what a theory is. The problem is that the theory of God is extremely difficult to prove right or wrong, and that's where people have problems isn't it? Evolution is backed up by pretty solid evidence. God is still just an idea, a belief, even though the concept has been around for countless years.
So to move the discussion along, you said that evolution is a theory, which is a detailed, proven explanation for why something happens, and that is the scientific meaning of "theory" that often goes mistaken for the other use of theory. But could the concept of God also qualify as theory in the way that most people interpret the word, which is basically an idea/statement that needs to be either proven correct or proven incorrect, like a hypothesis? If so, because it has gone neither proven nor unproven, could it still be possible that the concept of God is correct, and that he somehow fits into the history of development of the world? Does the theory of evolution even rule out God? While it does rule out the original idea that God created man as we are today, science also says that matter cannot come from nothing. If living organisms are proven to have evolved over millions of years from little bacteria cells or something, is there an explanation as to where that first life came from? While I do agree with evolution, I cannot rule out the idea that there may be a God who has played a role in life.
As to knowing that the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy do not exist because you have acted in their places, churches claim God acts through people all the time. People pray for help, other people give it, and they thank God for the help they received. Charity, medicine, or even something as simple as a conversation with a friend. People connect getting something they needed with the prayer for it, whether there is a definite link or not. That does not offer proof of God's non-existence, but neither does it disprove the Easter bunny. By its very nature there is no definitive proof of the absence of something, there is just no proof of its presence.
Sorry Lane, I was directing that at you. I should have specified.
I do agree that we cannot say that God does not exist simply because we do not have any evidence that He does. I am agnostic because I am not opposed to the idea of God, but I do tend to disagree with organized religion because most of them an really severely flawed.
When people argue against evolution, one of the arguments that come up every time is that it is a theory, not a law. The problem with this argument is that it is ignorant of what the difference between the scientific definition of the two concepts. A law is a mathematical equation that defines what we observe to happen. A theory is an explanation of why it happens and tends to be far more detailed, which is why it cannot be summed up in one equation.
Evolution is the theory which best explains life on earth and is the accepted model for nearly all scientists. While there is still debate, it is not among the scientific community. It is between the scientists and religious community. I do not consider this to take away from the reliability of the theory since historically religions have always resisted new knowledge. Fighting evolution is no different from the fight against heliocentricity. I expect that, if we are still alive in a hundred years or so we will see the churches accept evolution and make the needed changes to their dogma.
You are making sense, I just dislike the argument that since we cannot disprove somethings existence, that is evidence that it exists. It is fundamentally impossible to prove an absolute negative since, by definition there will be no evidence of it.
Well we do know that the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy don't exist... I've had to take those roles for my younger siblings haha.
@PsychDave you are one of the most logical people I have seen on here. I cannot tell if you are directing your remarkably intelligent comment to me or not. "What you are suggesting is that a lack of disproving evidence is evidence that it is true." I guess I am the one saying that there is a lack of disproving evidence, so I will reply.
I think that the lack of disproving evidence against God does not automatically make him real. But it means that we cannot rule out the possibility that God does exist and could play a role in things like human development. And that's what it seems that most people do, unfortunately.
Correct me if I am wrong or am not making sense.
We cannot ever prove a negative. We cannot prove unicorns, dragons, the tooth fairy or Easter bunny do not exist. All we can prove is that we have no evidence that they do. What you are suggesting is that a lack of disproving evidence is evidence that it is true. This is a logical circle as it can be used to justify anything.
Yes but, as much sense as that does make to our(for the most part) logically thinking brains, we cannot say that God has absolutely no role. While there is little to no real evidence that God does exist, there is little to no evidence that God does not exist. Therefore, the many claims on this app and in the real world that God does not actually exist are unreasonably incorrect. While it may seem biased that I am not also saying that claims that God DOES exist are also unreasonably correct, the fact that that position is the original proposal, the original hypothesis, that has not been proven against effectively, means that it still stands as a reasonable claim to what is unknown.
I can even attempt to turn this whole thing around on you. Evolutionists who do not believe that what happened in the bible is real are GUESSING, hypothesizing based on what they know about human psychology, that the early followers of the religion just made it all up. That is most certainly a possibility. But do they know it? They do not know it, the same way ancient people made a guess at what was causing certain things without actually knowing or being able to prove it with hard evidence.
Understand that we CAN have evidence for evolution, but it doesn't do much to prove the inexistence of God, because there still remains a possibility that the two fit together somehow.
we do know that evidence for god is 0 and evidence for evolution is practically perfect.
If you have to choose between no evidence or great evidence you chose the latter
@sophistry Haha that example made me genuinely laugh XD I totally misread at first, thought you were saying it as a metaphor, the banana being the concept of God...
Anyways, @omactivate acknowledge both sides of the argument. You are absolutely correct in saying that science does not support the bible. Does that mean that it is bs? I stated in another debate that God is basically a hypothesis, waiting to be either proven right or proven wrong. A hypothesis is a guess based on what you know about a topic. What did the Ancients know about certain events that supposedly happened? What do we know about them today? Next to nothing. We can't even come to a consensus of whether or not they even happened. If you are saying that the hypothesis of God is crap, then would I be incorrect in interpreting that as you believing that hypotheses that have not been concluded just yet are automatically "incorrect until proven correct"? While you are correct that evolution has a lot of evidence, how can it be said that God does not even fit into the mix? Give me hard evidence against God. Do not give me evidence that supports evolution or anything else, unless you can present it directly against the concept of God. Because it seems like most of the reasons people give for the inexistence of God are reasons that say "God is wrong because this other thing is right" I want to see a direct reason that God does not exist and could not have created evolution or anything like that.
For the record, I believe that evolution is real. But I am also religious, and I do not rule out the possibility of other factors having a role in human development, especially when real pieces of evidence have not been presented properly against those possibilities.
the majority of people live in areas where there are no bananas. until recently travel wasn't good enough to transport fruit long distances. for the most of human history the majority of humans had never even seen a banana. saying his created them to fit our hands when very few had even seen one is just juvenile. if you think that is some kind of proof you are wrong.
The banana is simply a useless ecample. If this divine creator made the banana for the human hand why not make all food fit the human hand. Why not make all humans believe him with his powers?
No, checkmark you. The banana is perfect for the hand because we have evolved for holding the banana and many other foods that fit in our hand. Of course, a banana isn't enough to live on. We still need protein and carbs. So the banana is an example of us evolving for it.
evolution clearly is not true since the world obviously has been crafted by an intelligent designer.
have you ever noticed how the banana fits perfectly into the human hand? the banana and hand were clearly made for one another, only a fool would deny it. checkmate atheists.
First sophistry. I don't want you to annoy anyone else with your spelling crap. No more about it.
Lane, it would be my pleasure to tell you everything I can. First off, we have astounding evidence towards evolution. We have fossils with DNA samples and other scientific tests that they have received. These tests prove the authenticity of the fossils and a slow evolution into an organism of different characteristics.
As for people who talk about God and creationism, they argue that God made everything. Bullcrap. There is no evidence to that. But wait! What about the visions and the parting of the red sea and...? Still bullcrap. We still don't have tested evidence that these things happened.
I am sorry for assuming that "agreed on" implied that everybody agrees on it. Still, this is a huge debate right now. Why? Because people literally cannot agree on it. So... your statement that it "is agreed on" is still incorrect.
@omactivate I invite you to share whatever else you "would have" included in the prompt if there had not been a space constraint.
soph istry, criticizing spelling of a middle schooler doesn't help disprove an argument. All it does is distract us from the argument. So stop.
Also if I could've I Would've said more, but there are space constraints.
he didn't say who agreed on it. his statement doesn't say that absolutely everyone agrees.
a please forgive my spelling. I rush when I type.
sO ment agreed on by a solid majority
You are making two different statements here. One, that evolution is right, I would agree with. The other, that there is evidence that is agreed on, is completely wrong and demonstrates your unwillingness to even consider any other positions, I will not waste my time typing an explanation as to why evolution is correct, rather I will briefly dispute your claim that the evidence is agreed on.
There are two mainstream beliefs on the matter: Creationism and Evolution. That fact alone proves your claim wrong.
There are plenty of debates on this very app that, by the name, you can tell people are arguing about your claim, which basically comes down to whether or not God created people or whether we evolved over time. That proves your claim wrong.
This is a pretty major topic today, especially in the USA. Some schools teach one way, while others teach another way. That proves your claim wrong too.
Reword it so that it isn't so definitive, because what you said is quite literally wrong and not debatable.