Do you believe in Evolution?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

I'd assert there are no gaps anymore, yet the theists assert there are in order to justify their continued belief in god.

Have we figured out the origin of the universe yet? While the gap is small I regretfully say, it's still there.

Yes, we have. Read "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.

[Hurdegaryp]

I'd assert there are no gaps anymore, yet the theists assert there are in order to justify their continued belief in god.

There are a few gaps. We still don't understand where the matter involved in the big bang came from. When it comes to the evolution debate though, they're using really old information, we've found the "missing link" yet they still accuse us of not having it.

And since new insights usually generate new questions that cannot be answered immediately, it is safe to assume there shall be no lack of gaps in the foreseeable future.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Nice achievment indicator. How did you make it?

http://www.says-it.com/achievement/xbox.php

[Neo Rome Republic]

Well then what are we debating about? If it can't be proven, and it contradicts something that has been proven, we should automatically assume it isn't true. That's just common sense.

Theistic evolution does not contradict anything that has been proven. It accepts the theory of evolution via natural selection as factual, and further expands on matters which are not covered in the theory of evolution via natural selection.

Science would have you admit that one's knowledge is limited rather than assert that the supernatural must be responsible.

The theistic evolution proponent needn't claim that the supernatural must be responsible. He merely claims that the supernatural is responsible. Science does not preclude this.

Doesn't matter, it makes a claim on how life started, how the universe came to be. It does by default have a Scientific burden of proof.

Theistic evolution makes a supernatural claim about the origin of life. However, it accepts fully the scientific explanation of the evolutionary mechanisms by which life came about, it merely also asserts that this was by the design of a supernatural being.

The origin and mechanisms of evolution are empirically verifiable.

Theistic evolution does not in any way contradict the theory of evolution via natural selection in any of its scientific claims. It merely makes a claim as to a supernatural instigation, design and purpose behind these empirically verifiable origins and mechanisms.

"Natural selection"
Pretty sure it's saying its saying it happened naturally.

Indeed it is. And the theistic evolution proponent further claims that all of nature, including the processes of natural selection, ultimately have a supernatural origin, design and purpose.

You still have a burden of proof, as it's a hypothesis on the origin of the universe. Calling it ''magic'' doesn't invalidate that. It's still a hypothesis on the origin of our universe. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

[Mkuki]

Nice achievment indicator. How did you make it?

Did you happen to look at the proof of evolution I provided you?

[Central Lothian]

Ye: if we were intelligently designed, how come my girlfriend needs to wear glasses?

[Zarkanians]

I'd assert there are no gaps anymore, yet the theists assert there are in order to justify their continued belief in god.

Have we figured out the origin of the universe yet? While the gap is small I regretfully say, it's still there.

I sneezed yesterday; I theorize that the shockwaves of that event rippled back through time to the day the universe was born and caused the big bang.

There; problem solved.

Yes, I believe in religion. Otherwise, I'm agnostic, with leanings towards Norse beliefs.

[Soughton]

I'd assert there are no gaps anymore, yet the theists assert there are in order to justify their continued belief in god.

It seems to me that the "gaps" are just where individual people don't understand or are intentionally misunderstanding things.

-----------------
Faith in the face of contrary evidence is mental illness.

[The Tovian Way]

Theistic evolution does not contradict anything that has been proven. It accepts the theory of evolution via natural selection as factual, and further expands on matters which are not covered in the theory of evolution via natural selection.



The theistic evolution proponent needn't claim that the supernatural must be responsible. He merely claims that the supernatural is responsible. Science does not preclude this.



Theistic evolution makes a supernatural claim about the origin of life. However, it accepts fully the scientific explanation of the evolutionary mechanisms by which life came about, it merely also asserts that this was by the design of a supernatural being.



Theistic evolution does not in any way contradict the theory of evolution via natural selection in any of its scientific claims. It merely makes a claim as to a supernatural instigation, design and purpose behind these empirically verifiable origins and mechanisms.



Indeed it is. And the theistic evolution proponent further claims that all of nature, including the processes of natural selection, ultimately have a supernatural origin, design and purpose.

You still have a burden of proof, as it's a hypothesis on the origin of the universe. Calling it ''magic'' doesn't invalidate that. It's still a hypothesis on the origin of our universe. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

You seem to be misunderstanding what a hypothesis is. It is improper to apply the term to a claim that does not seek to be supported by scientific argument. That aspect of theistic evolution is not a scientific argument, and makes no scientific claims; it is a theological argument and makes theological claims.
Also, note that I am not here arguing that theistic evolution is true; merely that it is a synthesis between the theory of evolution via natural selection, and the fully compatible theistic claim that the supernatural is the cause, guide and director of the processes described in this theory.

[Utceforp]

Well then what are we debating about? If it can't be proven, and it contradicts something that has been proven, we should automatically assume it isn't true. That's just common sense.

Theistic evolution does not contradict anything that has been proven. It accepts the theory of evolution via natural selection as factual, and further expands on matters which are not covered in the theory of evolution via natural selection.

I've heard an expression, I think it comes from the field of medicine, "If you hear hoof beats, don't assume it's zebras". Basically the modern version of Occam's Razor. There is evidence for evolution, and evolution without an intelligent creator has been proven to be possible, so why do you need tocomplicate things by assuming there is an intelligent creator?

[Old Tyrannia]

Yes, and I scoff at people who insist on continuing not to.

[Utceforp]

I didn't know that the rules allow to insult other beliefs by defining "bullshit" SACRED BOOKS. If I was a muslim I would be offended.

It does. The rules say you can't insult a player directly.

"Atheism is bullshit!" is a valid argument.
"Atheism is bullshit and you're an idiot for believing in it" is a not a valid argument and can get you warnings and even bans.

To be fair, if a creationist calls you an idiot, he's probably complimenting you for being unburdened with knowledge.

[The Tovian Way]

Theistic evolution does not contradict anything that has been proven. It accepts the theory of evolution via natural selection as factual, and further expands on matters which are not covered in the theory of evolution via natural selection.

I've heard an expression, I think it comes from the field of medicine, "If you hear hoof beats, don't assume it's zebras". Basically the modern version of Occam's Razor. There is evidence for evolution, and evolution without an intelligent creator has been proven to be possible, so why do you need tocomplicate things by assuming there is an intelligent creator?

You don't. The theistic evolution proponent need not assert that God as the cause and guide of evolution is necessary; he merely asserts that it is the case that God is the cause and guide of evolution.

[Neo Rome Republic]

You still have a burden of proof, as it's a hypothesis on the origin of the universe. Calling it ''magic'' doesn't invalidate that. It's still a hypothesis on the origin of our universe. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

You seem to be misunderstanding what a hypothesis is. It is improper to apply the term to a claim that does not seek to be supported by scientific argument. That aspect of theistic evolution is not a scientific argument, and makes no scientific claims; it is a theological argument and makes theological claims.
Also, note that I am not here arguing that theistic evolution is true; merely that it is a synthesis between the theory of evolution via natural selection, and the fully compatible theistic claim that the supernatural is the cause, guide and director of the processes described in this theory.

For the last time, YES IT IS. It's claim on the ORIGIN of our universe. Calling it magic does not change that. It's still a hypothesis. The Scientific burden of proof is still there.

[Mkuki]

It does. The rules say you can't insult a player directly.

"Atheism is bullshit!" is a valid argument.
"Atheism is bullshit and you're an idiot for believing in it" is a not a valid argument and can get you warnings and even bans.

To be fair, if a creationist calls you an idiot, he's probably complimenting you for being unburdened with knowledge.

What?

[Aquafireland]

Nice achievment indicator. How did you make it?

http://www.says-it.com/achievement/xbox.php

Cool. I'm going to create one of my own.

[The Tovian Way]

You seem to be misunderstanding what a hypothesis is. It is improper to apply the term to a claim that does not seek to be supported by scientific argument. That aspect of theistic evolution is not a scientific argument, and makes no scientific claims; it is a theological argument and makes theological claims.
Also, note that I am not here arguing that theistic evolution is true; merely that it is a synthesis between the theory of evolution via natural selection, and the fully compatible theistic claim that the supernatural is the cause, guide and director of the processes described in this theory.

For the last time, YES IT IS. It's claim on the ORIGIN of our universe. Calling it magic does not change that. It's still a hypothesis.

All accepted scientific explanations for the origin of the universe can be also be accepted by the theistic evolutionist. He merely makes additional non-scientific claims that a supernatural being is the cause of these processes, and that He directs these processes to bring about a specific outcome.

[Aquafireland]

Nice achievment indicator. How did you make it?

Did you happen to look at the proof of evolution I provided you?

Are you talking to me?

[Utceforp]

I've heard an expression, I think it comes from the field of medicine, "If you hear hoof beats, don't assume it's zebras". Basically the modern version of Occam's Razor. There is evidence for evolution, and evolution without an intelligent creator has been proven to be possible, so why do you need tocomplicate things by assuming there is an intelligent creator?

You don't. The theistic evolution proponent need not assert that God as the cause and guide of evolution is necessary; he merely asserts that it is the case that God is the cause and guide of evolution.

But you don't need to assume God is the cause for evolution. There's no reason to support theistic evolution aside from either A: feeling like doing something arbitrary or B: needing to cling to old belief systems because of familiarity.

[Torisakia]

Yes, and I scoff at people who insist on continuing not to.

And I'm sure they do the same.

[Aquafireland]

How long have you guys believed in the theory of evolution?

[Old Tyrannia]

Yes, and I scoff at people who insist on continuing not to.

And I'm sure they do the same.

They probably do. But I have the vast bulk of evidence on my side.

How long have you guys believed in the theory of evolution?

For as long as I can remember. And "believed" is the wrong term here; it's a matter of accepting the evidence, not faith.

[Bentrada]

How long have you guys believed in the theory of evolution?

Every since Charles Darwin discovered it in 1859.

[Torisakia]

And I'm sure they do the same.

They probably do. But I have the vast bulk of evidence on my side.

So do they.

Not sure what, but I'm pretty sure they do.

[The Tovian Way]

You don't. The theistic evolution proponent need not assert that God as the cause and guide of evolution is necessary; he merely asserts that it is the case that God is the cause and guide of evolution.

But you don't need to assume God is the cause for evolution. There's no reason to support theistic evolution aside from either A: feeling like doing something arbitrary or B: needing to cling to old belief systems because of familiarity.

No, you don't need to assume God is the cause for evolution. The theistic evolution proponent need not claim that this assumption is needed. He merely asserts that God is in fact the cause for evolution, not that He must be.
As far as his grounds for so believing, he can have any number of philosophical and theological arguments to support this claim, outside the two you have mentioned. They need not be scientific, because what he is asserting is not a scientific hypothesis; it is a theological claim which further informs a worldview which also includes scientific arguments, such as the theory of evolution via natural selection.