Do you believe in Evolution?

[Neo Rome Republic]

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.

Putting God as the origin is a claim of how our universe began, requires a Scientific burden of proof. Calling it magic doesn't change anything, stop with the special pleading.

[Utceforp]

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

What?

The scientific method was not used to debate the Bible. Nobody has ever tested whether or not the Bible is true through experimentation. Also, I'm sure there was tons of debate and discussion surrounding the Enuma Elish, and the Odyssey, the Book of the Dead, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, et cetera, et cetera. That doesn't mean they're right.

Indeed. But when you're a teenage creationist, you tend to have a poor grasp on such subjects. Of course that won't stop said teenage creationist to have opinions about them. Being unhindered by knowledge is seen as an advantage by some, which is really sad.

[Mkuki]

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

-ignore-

[Nationalist State of Knox]

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

Since I was old enough to question how life as we know it exists.

[Old Tyrannia]

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.

They have their thousands-of-years-old fables. I have scientific evidence. The two are not equal.

[Mkuki]

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

Are you talking to me?

Yes, I am.

[Liriena]

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.

Which, in a secular enviroment with no religious bias, would be an unfathomable leap of logic, an absurd and unnecessary claim. Not to mention theistic evolutionism, especially in the case of Christianity, suffers from severe coherency problems.

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

Ever since I first heard of it, really. I was raised reading scientific journals and watching Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos'.

[Torisakia]

So do they.

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

They have their thousands-of-years-old fables. I have scientific evidence. The two are not equal.

You mean fables aren't science?

There goes my childhood.

[The Tovian Way]

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.

Putting God as the origin is a claim of how our universe began, requires a Scientific burden of proof. Calling it magic doesn't change anything, stop with the special pleading.

No, it is a claim as to who began the universe. As for how the universe began, these are scientific claims, wholly empirically verifiable, and the theistic evolution proponent need not reject any of the accepted scientific explanations.

[Aquafireland]

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

Did you look at my information?

It's lost in all these comments. Would you be so kind to dig it out for me?

[Aquafireland]

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.

Which, in a secular enviroment with no religious bias, would be an unfathomable leap of logic, an absurd and unnecessary claim. Not to mention theistic evolutionism, especially in the case of Christianity, suffers from severe coherency problems.

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

Ever since I first heard of it, really. I was raised reading scientific journals and watching Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos'.

Well, when was that?

[Liriena]

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.

So theistic evolution is pretty much half-assed illusionism?

[Neo Rome Republic]

Putting God as the origin is a claim of how our universe began, requires a Scientific burden of proof. Calling it magic doesn't change anything, stop with the special pleading.

No, it is a claim as to who began the universe. As for how the universe began, these are scientific claims, wholly empirically verifiable, and the theistic evolution proponent need not reject any of the accepted scientific explanations.

That's still a claim on the origin of our Universe as your putting God in the origin, which is Scientific. Seriously, cut it out with the special pleading.

[Utceforp]

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.

While in day-to-day life you can claim that something mundane is the truth and people won't demand to know why you believe it to be true, anything as big as "why the universe exists" needs some facts backing it up. You don't get special treatment because your theory involves magic and divine beings, you still need proof.

[Mkuki]

Did you look at my information?

It's lost in all these comments. Would you be so kind to dig it out for me?

Yes, I will.

My point is, if evolution happened, why are there still apes in the world? Surely, there wouldn't be anymore left in the world if it happened.

My second question is, if evolution happened, it should still be happening. The physical look of the creature does not matter, but the intellect does. Why have us human beings, or 'apes' from your people's point of view, have not become much smarter? Yes, technology has advanced, but that does not subsequently apply to the fact that evolution is real. It is just a buildup from thousands of years, that's all.

My final point - if evolution really happened, why has it only happened to apes and gorillas? Why only them? Surely, if it happened, there would be a wider range of animals that have witnessed the evolution.

Now, I think in about finished here. I challenge every one of you to state a vaild argument against this, except for those who agree that the evolution theory is a myth.

I'd suggest you read up on scientific articles, papers, essays, and books concerning evolution. They provide more detailed information on why evolution is true than what any of us can do with a single post.

That said, Divair has a bevy of links on the validity of evolution. Regnum Dominae also has a good thread on why creationism is false.

I do hope you are genuinely interested in learning. I don't like wasting my time.

[Liriena]

Which, in a secular enviroment with no religious bias, would be an unfathomable leap of logic, an absurd and unnecessary claim. Not to mention theistic evolutionism, especially in the case of Christianity, suffers from severe coherency problems.


Ever since I first heard of it, really. I was raised reading scientific journals and watching Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos'.

Well, when was that?

I think I was either four or five years old. I was madly in love with astronomy and paleontology back then.

[The Tovian Way]

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.

Which, in a secular enviroment with no religious bias, would be an unfathomable leap of logic, an absurd and unnecessary claim. Not to mention theistic evolutionism, especially in the case of Christianity, suffers from severe coherency problems.

Of course a secular environment is not going to accept theistic evolution; it would be quite odd to expect that someone who did not believe in a supernatural being would accept a view that a supernatural being is the cause of, and guiding force behind, the natural processes of evolution! Rather, theistic evolution is a synthesis of theistic belief and acceptance of the theory of evolution via natural selection as fact.
I did not mention Christianity specifically, but depending on how the Christian interprets the creation passages in Genesis, there is no necessary coherency problems in also accepting the theory of evolution via natural selection. It is mainly the Genesis-literal interpretation that suffers from such issues.

[Bentrada]

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Putting God as the origin is a claim of how our universe began, requires a Scientific burden of proof. Calling it magic doesn't change anything, stop with the special pleading.

Actually the question of God is left to the philosophers.

For science; it's a non-question.

How do test for existence or non-existence?

[Utceforp]

Well, when was that?

I think I was either four or five years old. I was madly in love with astronomy and paleontology back then.

Damn. You beat me to it. For most of my younger life I was in some 1984-esque doublethink scenario where I simultaneously believed that the Big Bang was the reason the universe came into being, and God existed. I didn't think about the origin of the universe much when I was five. Then, once I became a grumpy teenager I figured out that this whole "God" idea didn't hold much water.

[Mkuki]

Putting God as the origin is a claim of how our universe began, requires a Scientific burden of proof. Calling it magic doesn't change anything, stop with the special pleading.

Actually the question of God is left to the philosophers.

For science; it's a non-question.

How do test for existence or non-existence?

Don't go asking quantum physicists or string theorists.

[Bentrada]

I think I was either four or five years old. I was madly in love with astronomy and paleontology back then.

Damn. You beat me to it. For most of my younger life I was in some 1984-esque doublethink scenario where I simultaneously believed that the Big Bang was the reason the universe came into being, and God existed. I didn't think about the origin of the universe much when I was five. Then, once I became a grumpy teenager I figured out that this whole "God" idea didn't hold much water.

I am right now in love astronomy, so interesting.

[Aquafireland]

Are you talking to me?

Yes, I am.

Okay then, bring out the information.

[The Tovian Way]

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.

While in day-to-day life you can claim that something mundane is the truth and people won't demand to know why you believe it to be true, anything as big as "why the universe exists" needs some facts backing it up. You don't get special treatment because your theory involves magic and divine beings, you still need proof.

I did not claim that the theistic evolution proponent has no backing for his theological claims, only that they need not be scientific. He arrives at his theistic claims through a different avenue than he arrives at his evolutionary claims, which is only to be expected, since his theistic claims are theological and/or philosophical, while his evolutionary claims are scientific and empirical.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Putting God as the origin is a claim of how our universe began, requires a Scientific burden of proof. Calling it magic doesn't change anything, stop with the special pleading.

Actually the question of God is left to the philosophers.

For science; it's a non-question.

How do test for existence or non-existence?

Intelligent design in the universe would be one way. It's still a claim on how our universe began, so it's Scientific.