Why is evolution even still a debate?

[We Never Know]

Evidence from biology, paleontology, geology, archaeology, zoology, cosmology(if you want to talk about the universe too), etc has an over abundance of evidence.

The other side has the bible and stories of the past.

I'm not saying any god(s) do or do not exit. Heck maybe they do and one created life as a science experiment to see how it would turn out.

The whole evolution vs creation argument breeds hate and distrust world wide

That's my thoughts anyways.

 

[John53]

Religious dogma.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's an affront to Biblical Literalism.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Evidence from biology, paleontology, geology, archaeology, zoology, cosmology(if you want to talk about the universe too), etc has an over abundance of evidence.

The other side has the bible and stories of the past.

I'm not saying any god(s) do or do not exit. Heck maybe they do and one created life as a science experiment to see how it would turn out.

The whole evolution vs creation argument breeds hate and distrust world wide

That's my thoughts anyways.

Depends what you mean by evolution.
No one has shown that we evolved from a single celled organism.

 

[We Never Know]

Depends what you mean by evolution.
No one has shown that we evolved from a single celled organism.

And no one has shown a god created man from dust.

 

[David Young]

Accident of history.

The cold war was in full-swing at a point when Evangelical Christianity was quite influential in the United States. It's possible that creationism would have had no more influence on Christianity than flat-earthism has had, in a parallel universe where either Russia never became the Soviet Union or the Soviet Union had not entered the space race or atomic era.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And no one has shown a god created man from dust.

So you can see why it's still a debate.

 

[We Never Know]

So you can see why it's still a debate.

No I can't. One side has evidence, one side has hope.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Accident of history.

The cold war was in full-swing at a point when Evangelical Christianity was quite influential in the United States. It's possible that creationism would have had no more influence on Christianity than flat-earthism has had, in a parallel universe where either Russia never became the Soviet Union or the Soviet Union had not entered the space race or atomic era.

What? I fail to see what Russia has to do with it?

 

[We Never Know]

Accident of history.

The cold war was in full-swing at a point when Evangelical Christianity was quite influential in the United States. It's possible that creationism would have had no more influence on Christianity than flat-earthism has had, in a parallel universe where either Russia never became the Soviet Union or the Soviet Union had not entered the space race or atomic era.

And all that has what to do with 3000-4000 years ago?

 

[Wildswanderer]

No I can't. One side has evidence, one side has hope.

Evidence of what? That things change? Sure any creationist would agree. Evidence that we evolved from another critter? Very debatable. Evidence that everything started with a single celled organism? Again, very debatable.

 

[We Never Know]

Evidence of what? That things change? Sure any creationist would agree. Evidence that we evolved from another critter? Very debatable. Evidence that everything started with a single celled organism? Again, very debatable.

You say things change. I agree. We see life has evolved in many ways.
How has man changed since he was created?

 

[David Young]

There was an Evangelical reaction to the secular superpower of Communist Russia. Some decided to pursue the intellectually suicidal path of trying to pick a fight with science in the hope that they could describe a world which, supposedly, only made sense if you introduced the Christian God to it.

Before that, Christianity generally had no difficulty in adapting to the theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Evidence of what? That things change? Sure any creationist would agree. Evidence that we evolved from another critter? Very debatable. Evidence that everything started with a single celled organism? Again, very debatable.

Not really... if you look at the fossil records and especially DNA evidence it's all spelled out fairly clearly. People who think it's still debatable simply refuse to study and comprehend the evidence.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Evidence from biology, paleontology, geology, archaeology, zoology, cosmology(if you want to talk about the universe too), etc has an over abundance of evidence.

The other side has the bible and stories of the past.

I'm not saying any god(s) do or do not exit. Heck maybe they do and one created life as a science experiment to see how it would turn out.

The whole evolution vs creation argument breeds hate and distrust world wide

That's my thoughts anyways.

The reason is that real science cannot be sent down from political headquarters. Its been tried, and you just wind up with dogmatic and bad science; and you wind up with people who equate science with magic and whatever discovery channel tells them to believe. Therefore science must take the long way round. It cannot be a system of authoritative declarations. Each student must be individually convinced by their own discovery of the subject matter. This means that science must lay long siege against fake authoritative claims. It is not scientific to argue from authority. Therefore you are looking at a future in which various people will make pseudo scientific claims, and the only solution to oppose them will be to teach as many people as possible how to be self educated and how to debunk such claims for ourselves.

So it must always be a debate, possibly forever.

 

[ppp]

Evidence of what? That things change? Sure any creationist would agree. Evidence that we evolved from another critter? Very debatable. Evidence that everything started with a single celled organism? Again, very debatable.

And yet all the evidence points to chemistry. And none points to gods.

 

[We Never Know]

The reason is that real science cannot be sent down from political headquarters. Its been tried, and you just wind up with dogmatic and bad science; and you wind up with people who equate science with magic and whatever discovery channel tells them to believe. Therefore science must take the long way round. It cannot be a system of authoritative declarations. Each student must be individually convinced by their own discovery of the subject matter. This means that science must lay long siege against fake authoritative claims. It is not scientific to argue from authority. Therefore you are looking at a future in which various people will make pseudo scientific claims, and the only solution to oppose them will be to teach as many people as possible how to be self educated and how to debunk such claims for ourselves.

So it must always be a debate, possibly forever.

For example the fiat earthers and the ones that think man walked with T-rex(dinosaurs) I just cant understand at all.

 

[ppp]

No I can't. One side has evidence, one side has hope.

I have hope. I just don't hope for the things that you do. Also, unlike you, my hope is not false hope.

 

[We Never Know]

I have hope. I just don't hope for the things that you do. Also, unlike you, my hope is not false hope.

Everyone has "hope" per se.

Not everyone has hope in a god or a heaven.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And no one has shown a god created man from dust.

Or a woman from a penis bone (baculum, mistranslated as rib).