Do you believe in Evolution?

[Mavorpen]

My mistake.

Forty whacks with a wet noodle for giving Creationists entirely too much credit.

Isn't the image of me being an hardcore atheist being ruined punishment enough?

[Riiser-Larsen]

Um, evolution has NEVER been proven. It's called the Big-Bang THEORY for a reasons. And there have been many flaws found in each paper trying to prove Evolution. One thing that HAS been proven is The Uncertainty Principle, which proves there IS no evolution

Theory is a scientific term for something which has enormous amounts of evidence and studies to back it.

You're thinking of hypothesis, which is what evolution is NOT.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

If Jesus isn't real, why are vampires afraid of crosses?

Vampires don't exist, not you have the hot potato of proving that vampires exist.

If I said God must exist to combat the dark lord Cthulhu, that doesn't make my claim any more valid.

I was joking.

[Chinese Regions]

Um, evolution has NEVER been proven. It's called the Big-Bang THEORY for a reasons. And there have been many flaws found in each paper trying to prove Evolution. One thing that HAS been proven is The Uncertainty Principle, which proves there IS no evolution

The Uncertainty Principle is quantum mechanics, not evolutionary biology.

lrn 2 science

Mentioning the uncertainty principle was the biscuit.

[Bottle]

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.

"I predict that God exists because__________________________"

First of all, the problem with your question is that you ask for a prediction. Considering that aspect, God cannot be understood from that perspective. Therefore, I cannot fill in the blank because the blank does not apply to my methodology of thought.

I Believe in God because I see his works through creation.

I Believe in God because He is the control group. One cannot refer to all of creation without God being somewhere at work. Not logically anyway.

I believe that Man's inherent desire and ability to create is a gift from God.

I believe that the above statement is invalid because it overlooks the Fact that God is not a force that can be Predicted. He acts in predictable ways so that we can understand him.

I believe that God allows us to live in a broken and sinful world because of our daily choices.

I believe that God has allowed for those who wish to stray from him a refuge for them to flee to. This is the theology of Science. The worship and glorification thereof is permitted because of the permission of free will.

That any one could call me wrong is impossible. This is what I believe. You could not know better than myself what I think.

The bold is why your beliefs aren't science, and also why nobody really cares.

In order for anybody to care, you need to state how [whatever] would be falsified. If you don't do that, then nothing you say is meaningful to anybody except you.

Which is fine, I mean you get to have feelings and whatever, it's just silly to expect anybody who isn't you to think it's important.

[Kantria]

Here's my problem:
So what I'm told is that, it's ''magic'' is a valid answer? In that case all biological evidence of people not coming back to life is false when it comes to vampires, vampires are real, because they are ''supernatural''. If a person makes a claim about God, and it doesn't have to be Scientific, then how does this work with burden of proof?

It doesn't. A means by which to test a hypothesis must be provided, as Bottle said. For a supernatural being, that is impossible; science is concerned exclusively with the natural world. Therefore, the hypothesis is, as far as the scientific process is concerned, invalid and irrelevant. It's not a scientific idea.

If vampires exist, they aren't supernatural. Biological immortality is not a fundamental impossibility, either.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

The Uncertainty Principle is quantum mechanics, not evolutionary biology.

lrn 2 science

Mentioning the uncertainty principle was the biscuit.

And he took that biscuit and ate it.

[Mavorpen]

The Uncertainty Principle is quantum mechanics, not evolutionary biology.

lrn 2 science

Mentioning the uncertainty principle was the biscuit.

Seriously, what does a limit in our observations of subatomic particles have to do with evolution.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Mentioning the uncertainty principle was the biscuit.

And he took that biscuit and ate it.

Maybe we should check and see if it turns into Jesus on the way down.

[The Serbian Empire]

Um, evolution has NEVER been proven. It's called the Big-Bang THEORY for a reasons. And there have been many flaws found in each paper trying to prove Evolution. One thing that HAS been proven is The Uncertainty Principle, which proves there IS no evolution

These "Theories" are treated as scientific facts.

[Old Tyrannia]

If vampires exist, they aren't supernatural.

That's a pretty sweeping statement. Personally I'd opine that if vampires did exist, they would have to be supernatural and not purely biological entities.

[Chinese Regions]

Our ancestors were apes and most certainly primates and we still are apes and primates, we did not evolve from other modern apes/primates, we we share a common ancestor with them.

I was trying to say that, but my shitty writing got in the way.

Well, if we want to be specific, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... #Hominidae

[Neo Rome Republic]

Here's my problem:
So what I'm told is that, it's ''magic'' is a valid answer? In that case all biological evidence of people not coming back to life is false when it comes to vampires, vampires are real, because they are ''supernatural''. If a person makes a claim about God, and it doesn't have to be Scientific, then how does this work with burden of proof?

It doesn't. A means by which to test a hypothesis must be provided, as Bottle said. For a supernatural being, that is impossible; science is concerned exclusively with the natural world. Therefore, the hypothesis is, as far as the scientific process is concerned, invalid and irrelevant. It's not a scientific idea.

If vampires exist, they aren't supernatural. Biological immortality is not a fundamental impossibility, either.

So a person who makes the claim God exists, has no burden of proof?

[Kantria]

So a person who makes the claim God exists has no burden of proof?

It isn't a question of who has the burden of proof; there is nothing to be proven. Not scientifically, anyway.

Now, if they want to offer up a naturalistic explanation of God, they have to provide a means of testing that hypothesis, and they WOULD have the burden of proof.

[Riiser-Larsen]

It doesn't. A means by which to test a hypothesis must be provided, as Bottle said. For a supernatural being, that is impossible; science is concerned exclusively with the natural world. Therefore, the hypothesis is, as far as the scientific process is concerned, invalid and irrelevant. It's not a scientific idea.

If vampires exist, they aren't supernatural. Biological immortality is not a fundamental impossibility, either.

So a person who makes the claim God exists, has no burden of proof?

The burden of proof is always on someone trying to prove a claim, Whether or not it's related to science.

[Chinese Regions]

Here's my problem:
So what I'm told is that, it's ''magic'' is a valid answer? In that case all biological evidence of people not coming back to life is false when it comes to vampires, vampires are real, because they are ''supernatural''. If a person makes a claim about God, and it doesn't have to be Scientific, then how does this work with burden of proof?

It doesn't. A means by which to test a hypothesis must be provided, as Bottle said. For a supernatural being, that is impossible; science is concerned exclusively with the natural world. Therefore, the hypothesis is, as far as the scientific process is concerned, invalid and irrelevant. It's not a scientific idea.

If vampires exist, they aren't supernatural. Biological immortality is not a fundamental impossibility, either.

Biological immortality with some necessity to consume blood and perhaps sparkles baddass theme music.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Um, evolution has NEVER been proven. It's called the Big-Bang THEORY for a reasons. And there have been many flaws found in each paper trying to prove Evolution. One thing that HAS been proven is The Uncertainty Principle, which proves there IS no evolution

These "Theories" are treated as scientific facts.

They're not treated as scientific facts, they are scientific facts.

[Neo Rome Republic]

So a person who makes the claim God exists has no burden of proof?

It isn't a question of who has the burden of proof; there is nothing to be proven. Not scientifically, anyway.

Now, if they want to offer up a naturalistic explanation of God, they have to provide a means of testing that hypothesis, and they WOULD have the burden of proof.

So ''it's magic'' is a valid answer then?

[Torisakia]

-snip-

I guess Charles Darwin never exist in your book?

[Utceforp]

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.

"I predict that God exists because__________________________"

First of all, the problem with your question is that you ask for a prediction. Considering that aspect, God cannot be understood from that perspective. Therefore, I cannot fill in the blank because the blank does not apply to my methodology of thought.

I Believe in God because I see his works through creation.

I Believe in God because He is the control group. One cannot refer to all of creation without God being somewhere at work. Not logically anyway.

I believe that Man's inherent desire and ability to create is a gift from God.

I believe that the above statement is invalid because it overlooks the Fact that God is not a force that can be Predicted. He acts in predictable ways so that we can understand him.

I believe that God allows us to live in a broken and sinful world because of our daily choices.

I believe that God has allowed for those who wish to stray from him a refuge for them to flee to. This is the theology of Science. The worship and glorification thereof is permitted because of the permission of free will.

That any one could call me wrong is impossible. This is what I believe. You could not know better than myself what I think.

Only the first statement you made is a reason for God to exist, and not a very good one at that. The rest are claims which haven't been proven, not proofs for the claim that "God Exists", so I'll focus on the first statement. In what way do you see God's works?

Also, you don't get exception from the scientific method because you have a different "methodology of thought." We all live in reality, surprisingly, and reality only follows one set of rules.

[Neo Rome Republic]

So a person who makes the claim God exists, has no burden of proof?

The burden of proof is always on someone trying to prove a claim, Whether or not it's related to science.

Is a claim false until proven true or not?

[Socialist Republic of Andrew]

Well i am actually mixed about it.

I believe that it happened, but it was created by God.
So i believe that Evolution was created by God, but this is just my personal opinion, not trying to say my way it right, just stating my opinion.

*passes the hot potato* Now the burden of proof is on you. Have fun.

Well the thing is this, there is a difference between someone, such as myself stating their opinion and then there are the people arguing that their opinions are fact.

This is my own opinion and so whether others choose to believe it or not is their choice, i just stated what i believed, nothing else to it.

[Mkuki]

It doesn't. A means by which to test a hypothesis must be provided, as Bottle said. For a supernatural being, that is impossible; science is concerned exclusively with the natural world. Therefore, the hypothesis is, as far as the scientific process is concerned, invalid and irrelevant. It's not a scientific idea.

If vampires exist, they aren't supernatural. Biological immortality is not a fundamental impossibility, either.

So a person who makes the claim God exists, has no burden of proof?

Clearly. If I say the Force exists, or that Barack Obama is a crossdressing transgender asexual, I don't need to prove it.

[Chinese Regions]

Mentioning the uncertainty principle was the biscuit.

Seriously, what does a limit in our observations of subatomic particles have to do with evolution.

Because Jesustron Yahwehboson Jewium-Nuclei is transcendental and Pi is actually 3 (it says so in the bible!).

[Riiser-Larsen]

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.

"I predict that God exists because__________________________"

First of all, the problem with your question is that you ask for a prediction. Considering that aspect, God cannot be understood from that perspective. Therefore, I cannot fill in the blank because the blank does not apply to my methodology of thought.

I Believe in God because I see his works through creation.

I Believe in God because He is the control group. One cannot refer to all of creation without God being somewhere at work. Not logically anyway.

I believe that Man's inherent desire and ability to create is a gift from God.

I believe that the above statement is invalid because it overlooks the Fact that God is not a force that can be Predicted. He acts in predictable ways so that we can understand him.

I believe that God allows us to live in a broken and sinful world because of our daily choices.

I believe that God has allowed for those who wish to stray from him a refuge for them to flee to. This is the theology of Science. The worship and glorification thereof is permitted because of the permission of free will.

That any one could call me wrong is impossible. This is what I believe. You could not know better than myself what I think.

How do you manage to fit that much of this in about eight sentences?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question