Do you believe in Evolution?

[Frisbeeteria]

Picspam is against forum rules.

How is 1 pic in a post spamming?

One pic in virtually EVERY post is spamming, a point I explained to you just yesterday. Since you seem determined to not want to follow the rules,

*** Forumbanned 24 hours ***

[Mavorpen]

The religious philosophical fails the science part.

Theistic evolution is fine for discussion in a Religious Studies classroom.

The religious/philosophical theory does not purport to be a scientific theory, any more than the scientific theory purports to be a religious or philosophical one. Theistic evolution is a synthesis between the religious/philosophical and the scientific, because the two are mutually compatible.

No they aren't.

[Old Tyrannia]

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.

Actually, coherency problems would still exist even without a literalist interpretation of the Bible. It would fall unto the theistic evolutionist to explain the reason why a deity (especially an anthropocentric deity such as the Abrahamic one, which is allegedly omnipotent, omniscient and not bound by the laws of physics) create and guide our Universe through the physical laws and phenomena that we know of.

Because it pleases Him to do so, I guess. And he's not above breaking the rules as a demonstration of His power to conduct miracles from time to time.

Why would an anthropocentric God take billions of years to have the evolutionary process create humans?

Maybe God works slowly. He may be capable of doing anything, but maybe He can't necessarily do everything instantly.

Why would an anthropocentric God make our Sun a finite (and deadly) source of energy that will eventually destroy our planet?

Perhaps it only needed to last a finite amount of time before its purpose was complete. God might disapprove of wasting energy.

Why would an anthropocentric God create billions of other galaxies, which we will probably never visit, and billions of planets that will be gone long before we can visit them?

Maybe He didn't create them for us, but for His other creations. He probably likes trying out different scenarios, like how people make puppet nations on NS and Spore players play several games at once on different planets.

Why would an anthropocentric God have the evolutionary process create humans, and then wait thousands of years to show himself in human mythological texts, such as the Bible?

Well, if He appeared to Homo erectus, we wouldn't know about it since they left no writing behind.

Why are eating, breathing, drinking and sleeping be necessary concepts in this God's design?

Well, I suppose because He made the universe so that things require energy to work. This is probably because death is a fundamental part of His plan.

Why is the massive, deadly void of outer space a necessary concept? Why does this anthropocentric God allow so many physical obstacles, many of which our species cannot avoid?

Probably doesn't want us interfering with His plans for different planets.

BTW, I'm not even a believer in the Abrahamic God.

[Utceforp]

No. It makes no predictions. A hypothesis must make predictions which can be tested.

We are intelligently designed, isn't a prediction?

"I predict that God exists."

Alright, now tell me how you would prove that.

[The Tovian Way]

The claim that there exists a supernatural person who is the ultimate cause for the accepted scientific origins of the universe is not a scientific claim.

Which is precisely why it's false

You have yet to demonstrate that all claims which are not scientific are false by necessity.

[Magthere]

No. It makes no predictions. A hypothesis must make predictions which can be tested.

We are intelligently designed, isn't a prediction?

It must make a prediction that can be tested. There is no way to test for intelligent design.

[Riiser-Larsen]

No. It makes no predictions. A hypothesis must make predictions which can be tested.

We are intelligently designed, isn't a prediction?

Not based on science. In order for it to be a valid prediction it needs to have some evidence. If I walked outside and said "I think there's going to be a tornado" that's not a valid prediction, I never stated why there might be a tornado, and nothing's backing my claim. If I walked outside and said "I think there's going to be a tornado because the area is showing all the signs of a tornado forming", then that is a valid prediction.

[Neo Rome Republic]

We are intelligently designed, isn't a prediction?

"I predict that God exists."

Alright, now tell me how you would prove that.

Look for intelligent design in the universe, I suppose. I'm not the one who's saying God exists btw.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Apparently it's the Greatest Country on Earth.

However, unlike evolution, this claim has no evidence.

Knox, do you live in the USA?

No, the UK.

[Bottle]

We are intelligently designed, isn't a prediction?

"I predict that God exists."

Alright, now tell me how you would prove that.

You're doing it backwards.

If someone asserts that God exists, then they must provide the means by which we would DISPROVE that hypothesis. In other words, they must describe a means by which God is testable and falsifiable.

[The Tovian Way]

The religious/philosophical theory does not purport to be a scientific theory, any more than the scientific theory purports to be a religious or philosophical one. Theistic evolution is a synthesis between the religious/philosophical and the scientific, because the two are mutually compatible.

No they aren't.

I've demonstrated that they are. The theistic evolution proponent does not in any way deny what is being asserted by the theory of evolution via natural selection. He merely makes additional claims which are not addressed by that theory. These additional claims are non-scientific, theological/philosophical in nature, and are asserted on grounds other than scientific theory.

[Mavorpen]

Which is precisely why it's false

You have yet to demonstrate that all claims which are not scientific are false by necessity.

It's not my fault you fail to understand the null hypothesis.

[Utceforp]

"I predict that God exists."

Alright, now tell me how you would prove that.

Look for intelligent design in the universe, I suppose. I'm not the one who's saying God exists btw.

I just read Riiser's post, and he/she brings up a good point.

Alright, I'll change that to

"I predict that God exists because _________________________"

Fill in the blank.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Knox, do you live in the USA?

No, the UK.

I live in the US, and frankly Knox is pretty much completely right. There's no reason for the US to call itself #1.

[Temujinn]

Evolutionary biology is hard.

I don't wanna.

Therefore, God.

That's what "reasonable" means, right? Well, it is now, because that's how I want to use the word.

The people who don't understand evolution o to God because its much simpler to understand and learn. And, with this one sentence you never have to learn anything! "God just made it that way"

Thats an asinine and insulting position.

People who dont accept evolution dont do it because they are lazy? Thats exceedingly arrogant of you.

Of course you picked the word "understand", there are a vast host of people who do not understand evolution, you sir are likely one of them. However please enlighten me with your vast and total understanding of evolutionary theory. Please however dont waste my time with copy-pasta, use your own words, since you have said understanding as your post implies this shouldnt be difficult at all, or perhaps youre just too lazy. Though I doubt someone who is clearly a PhD holder in at least one discipline of the biological sciences surely isnt so lazy as to not be able to convey something he has a complete understanding of, right?

[Utceforp]

"I predict that God exists."

Alright, now tell me how you would prove that.

You're doing it backwards.

If someone asserts that God exists, then they must provide the means by which we would DISPROVE that hypothesis. In other words, they must describe a means by which God is testable and falsifiable.

Well that's the problem, isn't it. It can neither be proven or disproven.

[Mavorpen]

No they aren't.

I've demonstrated that they are. The theistic evolution proponent does not in any way deny what is being asserted by the theory of evolution via natural selection.

Which is a lie. The null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God.

[The Tovian Way]

You have yet to demonstrate that all claims which are not scientific are false by necessity.

It's not my fault you fail to understand the null hypothesis.

After several pages of debate, I rather think that it is you that misunderstands the null hypothesis.

[Mkuki]

I guess. It just irritates me. It's made that much worse since I live in Georgia.

You are right to be irritated by the revolting level of rudeness shown by the Creationists in this thread. They are choosing to be disrespectful, cowardly, dishonest, and lazy. Those are all behaviors which are unworthy of any thinking person.

I merely wanted to provide a bit of comfort. Remember that their personal failures don't actually matter, as far as science is concerned. Their feeble theology has no power over the empirical realities of this universe, nor the scientific methods for exploring those realities.

The problem, in my mind, is that these types run every facet of practically every single government.

Science on, intrepid adventurer!

[Enadail]

"I predict that God exists."

Alright, now tell me how you would prove that.

Look for intelligent design in the universe, I suppose. I'm not the one who's saying God exists btw.

Given you can't show intelligent design without something to compare it to, that's not really something you can look for...

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

No wonder you're an atheist. You don't even try to see the connections scientists are bumping into that the Bible already summarized.

Like how the Earth is flat despite satellites orbiting it, how the age of the Earth is in thousands of years rather than billions despite fossils much older than that, and how some people who say Jesus the first time will still be alive during the second coming despite Christians having now waited almost 2000 years for their prophet to come back?

Christians, mind you, did not think the Earth was flat. That is a western notion. Right there, you have no argument. Columbus had debates with western sailors since when they saw the sea all around them, it looked pretty flat to them. Christians of Eastern Orthodoxy didn't care if the earth was flat round or concave. It was the earth.

What you fail to understand is that in the ancient christian mind, specifics get in the way.

Point debunked.

[The Tovian Way]

I've demonstrated that they are. The theistic evolution proponent does not in any way deny what is being asserted by the theory of evolution via natural selection.

Which is a lie. The null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God.

Show your work.

[Mavorpen]

It's not my fault you fail to understand the null hypothesis.

After several pages of debate, I rather think that it is you that misunderstands the null hypothesis.

What debate? It's literally been you repeating the same claim over and over.

[Mavorpen]

Which is a lie. The null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God.

Show your work.

Gladly. Provide scientific existence God exists please.

[Aquafireland]

Knox, do you live in the USA?

No, the UK.

Oh, okay. South, I believe?