Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[Ostroeuropa]

No. It is completely absurd

Oh this'll be good. Go ahead, what's your argument.

[Straughn]

No. It is completely absurd

Oh this'll be good. Go ahead, what's your argument.

An argument is a series of connected statements intended to establish a proposition ...

... the above doesn't appear to be a series of connected statements nor an establishment, just an assertion. Might be all they have.

[Mavorpen]

No, because if the "morality" came from anywhere except God there is a chance of it being wrong.
Yes, there is an absolute standard. Denying it does not mean it does not exist.

morality is a human invention, every species that invents it will have its own morality.
there is a chance your chosen god is wrong, therefore so would be the morality.

Morality isn't necessarily a human invention. Ethics, however, is.

[Farnhamia]

morality is a human invention, every species that invents it will have its own morality.
there is a chance your chosen god is wrong, therefore so would be the morality.

Morality isn't necessarily a human invention. Ethics, however, is.

Don't give in to the threadjack. Morality and ethics have nothing to do with evolution.

[Mavorpen]

Morality isn't necessarily a human invention. Ethics, however, is.

Don't give in to the threadjack. Morality and ethics have nothing to do with evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

[Farnhamia]

Don't give in to the threadjack. Morality and ethics have nothing to do with evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

*summons Guards*

[Sociobiology]

morality is a human invention, every species that invents it will have its own morality.
there is a chance your chosen god is wrong, therefore so would be the morality.

Morality isn't necessarily a human invention. Ethics, however, is.

sorry I was using invented in the evolutionary sense, that was my bad. must... avoid...technical jargon.

[The Merchant Republics]

Evolution? Of course. It's scientifically observable. It's supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence.

Natural selection as the sole engine of evolution? I have my doubts. I believe there is an element, indeed an essential requirement of intelligent creation involved.

I'm not loving my prospects at finding people who agree with me on NS though...

[The De Danann Nation]

Wow,the evolutionist outnumber the creationist a lot.

[Mavorpen]

Evolution? Of course. It's scientifically observable. It's supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence.

Natural selection as the sole engine of evolution? I have my doubts. I believe there is an element, indeed an essential requirement of intelligent creation involved.

No.

[Frisivisia]

Wow,the evolutionist outnumber the creationist a lot.

It helps to have a sensical argument.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Evolution? Of course. It's scientifically observable. It's supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence.

Natural selection as the sole engine of evolution? I have my doubts. I believe there is an element, indeed an essential requirement of intelligent creation involved.

I'm not loving my prospects at finding people who agree with me on NS though...

Prove that that element exists, or even just that it's an essential requirement.

[Xathranaar]

Evolution? Of course. It's scientifically observable. It's supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence.

Natural selection as the sole engine of evolution? I have my doubts. I believe there is an element, indeed an essential requirement of intelligent creation involved.

I'm not loving my prospects at finding people who agree with me on NS though...

If you can provide me with any evidence of this I will give you my piano, one of my legs, and my wife.

[The Merchant Republics]

Evolution? Of course. It's scientifically observable. It's supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence.

Natural selection as the sole engine of evolution? I have my doubts. I believe there is an element, indeed an essential requirement of intelligent creation involved.

I'm not loving my prospects at finding people who agree with me on NS though...

Prove that that element exists, or even just that it's an essential requirement.

Prove? You and I both know that this is not within the realm of possibility. Mine is a metaphysical claim. It's literally a matter of belief in what is most logical.

A skeptical bias against God, makes for even stanger leaps of complex fantasy without him. To leap to cosmology, because inevitably it would be reduced there. An eternal constantly cycling universe defies what we know about the physics that govern us. The anthropic principle is suitable grounds for both sides to use. Multiple universes are both more complex and no more provable than God.

A skeptical eye must admit there is an objective universe, if so then there is a cause for it, that cause is no less plausibly God than anything else suggested, if not more so. Indeed it is more so, significantly in the case of evolution. I can only point out that we are the creation of something, we have tool marks about us. Things that have come together in ways that defy plausible formation by chance alone.

It is as though we might have arrived in a crime scene, a man lies on the floor dead having been stabbed several times by the same knife, but refuse to believer it could be murder because a murderer has not been found. The sheer baffling unlikelihood that a knife would fly through the air at random and hit the man several times is contrary to what we know about the laws of the universe, but because it doesn't have this unproven assailent it is to you more believable.

I can't prove to you there was a murderer, if you begin with the axiom that he's not there. God is only the most complicated solution when you presume his existence to be unfounded and complicated. If you would adapt the believer's view God is simply there, and should be presumed there until he is proven not, the evidence for him becomes substantial.

[Xathranaar]

Prove that that element exists, or even just that it's an essential requirement.

Prove? You and I both know that this is not within the realm of possibility. Mine is a metaphysical claim. It's literally a matter of belief in what is most logical.

Stop right there. Demonstrate that metaphysics is a valid field of inquiry.

[Frisivisia]

Prove that that element exists, or even just that it's an essential requirement.

Prove? You and I both know that this is not within the realm of possibility. Mine is a metaphysical claim. It's literally a matter of belief in what is most logical.

A skeptical bias against God, makes for even stanger leaps of complex fantasy without him. To leap to cosmology, because inevitably it would be reduced there. An eternal constantly cycling universe defies what we know about the physics that govern us. The anthropic principle is suitable grounds for both sides to use. Multiple universes are both more complex and no more provable than God.

A skeptical eye must admit there is an objective universe, if so then there is a cause for it, that cause is no less plausibly God than anything else suggested, if not more so. Indeed it is more so, significantly in the case of evolution. I can only point out that we are the creation of something, we have tool marks about us. Things that have come together in ways that defy plausible formation by chance alone.

It is as though we might have arrived in a crime scene, a man lies on the floor dead having been stabbed several times by the same knife, but refuse to believer it could be murder because a murderer has not been found. The sheer baffling unlikelihood that a knife would fly through the air at random and hit the man several times is contrary to what we know about the laws of the universe, but because it doesn't have this unproven assailent it is to you more believable.

I can't prove to you there was a murderer, if you begin with the axiom that he's not there. God is only the most complicated solution when you presume his existence to be unfounded and complicated. If you would adapt the believer's view God is simply there, and should be presumed there until he is proven not, the evidence for him becomes substantial.

The universe does not need a designer, but a murder needs a murderer. Your analogy is unfounded.

[The Merchant Republics]

Prove? You and I both know that this is not within the realm of possibility. Mine is a metaphysical claim. It's literally a matter of belief in what is most logical.

Stop right there. Demonstrate that metaphysics is a valid field of inquiry.

Prove to me that any scientific inquiry is valid without resorting to at least one metaphysical claim. Quicknote: objective existence is a metaphysical claim. As is the notion of good, justice, truth, and sanity.

[Frisivisia]

Stop right there. Demonstrate that metaphysics is a valid field of inquiry.

Prove to me that any scientific inquiry is valid without resorting to at least one metaphysical claim. Quicknote: objective existence is a metaphysical claim. As is the notion of good, justice, truth, and sanity.

Science never bases itself on sanity or good. Science bases itself on what is there, objectively. Science is the rejection of metaphysical concepts in favor of physical ones.

[Enadail]

Wow,the evolutionist outnumber the creationist a lot.

First, there's no such thing as an "evolutionist"... at least, no more then a "gravitist" or "atomist". Giving it an "ist" to contrast it with creationist gives it a connotation of belief, which it is not.

Second, I'm glad. Evolution is an observed fact, and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is one of the most widely accepted theories in science, with (best as I know), fewer holes then gravity. There is no reason to believe evolution is not real.

[The Merchant Republics]

Prove? You and I both know that this is not within the realm of possibility. Mine is a metaphysical claim. It's literally a matter of belief in what is most logical.

A skeptical bias against God, makes for even stanger leaps of complex fantasy without him. To leap to cosmology, because inevitably it would be reduced there. An eternal constantly cycling universe defies what we know about the physics that govern us. The anthropic principle is suitable grounds for both sides to use. Multiple universes are both more complex and no more provable than God.

A skeptical eye must admit there is an objective universe, if so then there is a cause for it, that cause is no less plausibly God than anything else suggested, if not more so. Indeed it is more so, significantly in the case of evolution. I can only point out that we are the creation of something, we have tool marks about us. Things that have come together in ways that defy plausible formation by chance alone.

It is as though we might have arrived in a crime scene, a man lies on the floor dead having been stabbed several times by the same knife, but refuse to believer it could be murder because a murderer has not been found. The sheer baffling unlikelihood that a knife would fly through the air at random and hit the man several times is contrary to what we know about the laws of the universe, but because it doesn't have this unproven assailent it is to you more believable.

I can't prove to you there was a murderer, if you begin with the axiom that he's not there. God is only the most complicated solution when you presume his existence to be unfounded and complicated. If you would adapt the believer's view God is simply there, and should be presumed there until he is proven not, the evidence for him becomes substantial.

The universe does not need a designer, but a murder needs a murderer. Your analogy is unfounded.

You have clinically misunderstood. The man wasn't murdered, he was killed with a knife. You do not need a murderer for someone to die by knife wound. It could be a freak accident. Assuming a murderer is unfounded, it is staggeringly more likely however.

The universe could have been designed, it is more likely then it was, but if you presume the universe to be without design, no amount of my pointing out this crucial fact will help.

Right now there is a car outside my house, yet I cannot prove according to the burden of proof you lay on me that it was designed. It looks designed, men claim to have designed it, a blueprint of its design and the process of it exists, it bears the marks of a concerted effort in manufacture. Yet it does not need a designer, all of the parts to make it exist, the tool marks prove only that it was assembled, those who did could have possibly just slap parts together ramshackle until they fit.

I only think the car is designed because had it not been I would not be looking at it. It might be just that the random placement of parts just bears the resemblance of design, but that is not the most likely answer. Is it?

So does my car need a designer?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

The universe does not need a designer, but a murder needs a murderer. Your analogy is unfounded.

You have clinically misunderstood. The man wasn't murdered, he was killed with a knife. You do not need a murderer for someone to die by knife wound. It could be a freak accident. Assuming a murderer is unfounded, it is staggeringly more likely however.

The universe could have been designed, it is more likely then it was, but if you presume the universe to be without design, no amount of my pointing out this crucial fact will help.

Right now there is a car outside my house, yet I cannot prove according to the burden of proof you lay on me that it was designed. It looks designed, men claim to have designed it, a blueprint of its design and the process of it exists, it bears the marks of a concerted effort in manufacture. Yet it does not need a designer, all of the parts to make it exist, the tool marks prove only that it was assembled, those who did could have possibly just slap parts together ramshackle until they fit.

I only think the car is designed because had it not been I would not be looking at it. It might be just that the random placement of parts just bears the resemblance of design, but that is not the most likely answer. Is it?

So does my car need a designer?

Your car is Bumblebee.

[The Merchant Republics]

Prove to me that any scientific inquiry is valid without resorting to at least one metaphysical claim. Quicknote: objective existence is a metaphysical claim. As is the notion of good, justice, truth, and sanity.

Science never bases itself on sanity or good. Science bases itself on what is there, objectively. Science is the rejection of metaphysical concepts in favor of physical ones.

Objectivity however is a metaphysical claim.

If a universe exists that everyone can see, then it begs the question of it's cause. If a physical world exists to be examined, it is only for our mutual recognition of it. Our shared but subjective view of this universe cannot be scientically proven, unless we both accept metaphysical premises like objectivity.

[Xathranaar]

Stop right there. Demonstrate that metaphysics is a valid field of inquiry.

Prove to me that any scientific inquiry is valid without resorting to at least one metaphysical claim. Quicknote: objective existence is a metaphysical claim. As is the notion of good, justice, truth, and sanity.

Wonderful thing about science really, it operates on the basis of the rather modest metaphysical assumption that there is an objective reality, and that it is possible to learn something about it. However, it is not dependent upon that claim.

This is because science works equally well in hypothetical realities where this is the case, as well as those where it merely appears to be the case. As this reality is, undeniably, one in which it at least appears to be the case, we can say that science works without having to prove a metaphysical model.

However, to say that "good" is beyond comment without making a metaphysical statement seems, on the face of it absurd (to say nothing of these others.) Good is clearly subjective and relative, a notion of good could exist in any metaphysical model.. Likewise "justice" is reducible to balance or various evolutionary algorithms governing social interactions.

And I dare say that metaphysics cannot coherently address sanity, truth, justice, or good either. So I wonder what you think your point is?

[The Merchant Republics]

You have clinically misunderstood. The man wasn't murdered, he was killed with a knife. You do not need a murderer for someone to die by knife wound. It could be a freak accident. Assuming a murderer is unfounded, it is staggeringly more likely however.

The universe could have been designed, it is more likely then it was, but if you presume the universe to be without design, no amount of my pointing out this crucial fact will help.

Right now there is a car outside my house, yet I cannot prove according to the burden of proof you lay on me that it was designed. It looks designed, men claim to have designed it, a blueprint of its design and the process of it exists, it bears the marks of a concerted effort in manufacture. Yet it does not need a designer, all of the parts to make it exist, the tool marks prove only that it was assembled, those who did could have possibly just slap parts together ramshackle until they fit.

I only think the car is designed because had it not been I would not be looking at it. It might be just that the random placement of parts just bears the resemblance of design, but that is not the most likely answer. Is it?

So does my car need a designer?

Your car is Bumblebee.

And yet the insurance company refused to believe me about those plasma holes in the chasis../.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Prove that that element exists, or even just that it's an essential requirement.

Prove? You and I both know that this is not within the realm of possibility. Mine is a metaphysical claim. It's literally a matter of belief in what is most logical.

A skeptical bias against God, makes for even stanger leaps of complex fantasy without him. To leap to cosmology, because inevitably it would be reduced there. An eternal constantly cycling universe defies what we know about the physics that govern us. The anthropic principle is suitable grounds for both sides to use. Multiple universes are both more complex and no more provable than God.

A skeptical eye must admit there is an objective universe, if so then there is a cause for it, that cause is no less plausibly God than anything else suggested, if not more so. Indeed it is more so, significantly in the case of evolution. I can only point out that we are the creation of something, we have tool marks about us. Things that have come together in ways that defy plausible formation by chance alone.

It is as though we might have arrived in a crime scene, a man lies on the floor dead having been stabbed several times by the same knife, but refuse to believer it could be murder because a murderer has not been found. The sheer baffling unlikelihood that a knife would fly through the air at random and hit the man several times is contrary to what we know about the laws of the universe, but because it doesn't have this unproven assailent it is to you more believable.

I can't prove to you there was a murderer, if you begin with the axiom that he's not there. God is only the most complicated solution when you presume his existence to be unfounded and complicated. If you would adapt the believer's view God is simply there, and should be presumed there until he is proven not, the evidence for him becomes substantial.

Your argument is at its heart special pleading. God's special. He must be there, because he is.

If I ask you if there is a walrus beneath the surface of titan, you will find that notion ridiculous. There's no reason to think that there's a walrus beneath the surface of titan because there's no evidence for one.

But wait... the walrus needs evidence, but god doesn't?

My bias is not inherently against god, but against claims that lack evidence. I am just as against your goddunnit as another person's walrusdunnit. Obviously the goddunnit person and the walrusdunnit person can't both be right. Historically, both of them have been wrong with every claim we can currently test.