Do you believe in Evolution?

[Mavorpen]

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.

No. The burden of proof extends outside of science.

[Chinese Regions]

-snip-

I guess Charles Darwin never exist in your book?

Or Heisenberg. Charles Darwin is a fictional character made up for 10 pound notes.

[The Tovian Way]

You haven't demonstrated any coherency problems at all. I see no reason why an omnipotent, omniscient, anthropocentric God unbounded by physical laws would not create and guide our universe through the physical laws and phenomena we know of. He certainly was not bound to do so, but neither have you presented any compelling reason why He would not do so.

The Christian God, in most of the interpretations of it, centers his every action on the human species, allegedly with benevolent intent. This God is claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, just and (mostly) truthful.

He allegedly cares about or well-being. Yet he provides us with a Universe filled to the brim with useless (and deadly) space and phenomena, not to mention arbitrariously feeble bodies. If human beings are God's 'favorites', why are so many of our physical traits inferior to those of other species? Our eyesight is surpassed by that of many predators, as are our olfatory sense and our hearing. Our legs can only make us so fast. Our teeth and fingernails are useless against most preys and predators. Our brains often conceal information from us, or outright lie to us. We speak, breath and eat through the same orifice. We get rid of bodily waste and reproduce with practically the same organs.

What justification would any deity that is so concerned with our species' well-being have for such inadequate bodies and equally inadequate enviroments? What justification would such a deity have for the Big Bang, the formation of planets, abiogenesis or the evolutionary process?

I really don't see why the fact that humans are not as fast, or as strong, or have as good a sense of smell as other creatures presents a problem. We're given what we need; if we needed a stronger sense of smell, the benevolent God would have brought it about for us via the process of evolution. In fact, the Christian theistic evolution proponent can assert that the mechanism of evolution is precisely the means by which God gives to creatures those traits that they need for His purposes.
Further, the vulnerability of our bodies need not present any issue to the Christian, because the Christian does not claim that the physical world is all there is, or even mainly what there is, to the individual's existence. The fact that an individual will die means, to the Christian, only that his soul is separated from his body, not that his existence in any way ends. It is entirely possible that God intended our mortal bodies to be similar to our baby teeth; namely, a facet of our existence we are intended to grow out of and eventually discard.
As for the Big Bang, the formation of planets, abiogenesis or the evolutionary process, I see no reason why such a deity wouldn't utilize such mechanisms; presumably He could have chosen other means, but there is no compelling reason I see here for Him not to choose the means He did.

[Jepakia]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

[Neo Rome Republic]

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.

No. The burden of proof extends outside of science.

Is something false until proven true, or of equal probability to being proved or disproved?

[Riiser-Larsen]

The Christian God, in most of the interpretations of it, centers his every action on the human species, allegedly with benevolent intent. This God is claimed to be omnipotent, omniscient, just and (mostly) truthful.

He allegedly cares about or well-being. Yet he provides us with a Universe filled to the brim with useless (and deadly) space and phenomena, not to mention arbitrariously feeble bodies. If human beings are God's 'favorites', why are so many of our physical traits inferior to those of other species? Our eyesight is surpassed by that of many predators, as are our olfatory sense and our hearing. Our legs can only make us so fast. Our teeth and fingernails are useless against most preys and predators. Our brains often conceal information from us, or outright lie to us. We speak, breath and eat through the same orifice. We get rid of bodily waste and reproduce with practically the same organs.

What justification would any deity that is so concerned with our species' well-being have for such inadequate bodies and equally inadequate enviroments? What justification would such a deity have for the Big Bang, the formation of planets, abiogenesis or the evolutionary process?

I really don't see why the fact that humans are not as fast, or as strong, or have as good a sense of smell as other creatures presents a problem. We're given what we need; if we needed a stronger sense of smell, the benevolent God would have brought it about for us via the process of evolution. In fact, the Christian theistic evolution proponent can assert that the mechanism of evolution is precisely the means by which God gives to creatures those traits that they need for His purposes.
Further, the vulnerability of our bodies need not present any issue to the Christian, because the Christian does not claim that the physical world is all there is, or even mainly what there is, to the individual's existence. The fact that an individual will die means, to the Christian, only that his soul is separated from his body, not that his existence in any way ends. It is entirely possible that God intended our mortal bodies to be similar to our baby teeth; namely, a facet of our existence we are intended to grow out of and eventually discard.
As for the Big Bang, the formation of planets, abiogenesis or the evolutionary process, I see no reason why such a deity wouldn't utilize such mechanisms; presumably He could have chosen other means, but there is no compelling reason I see here for Him not to choose the means He did.

The plain fact is that if you have an omnibenevolent god that seeks only to make his "chosen people" happy then that does not explain why humans are as flawed as they are. You can't present in the same argument that god is perfect and that he created all that exists, but all that exists is flawed and inefficient.

[Mkuki]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

That...that isn't what evolution is at all.

Some information is in the below quote. Click the links.

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.

[The Tovian Way]

Ah-ah! I did not ask you to answer a pre-existent argument I had for the existence of God. That's another topic.
You asserted the claim "The null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God." You now need to support this claim with argument.

So am I to take it you have none?

Then via the null hypothesis, God does not exist.

Again, show your work.

[Torisakia]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

Not according to atheists...

[Jepakia]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

[Utceforp]

*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.

It's not an "opinion". An opinion is that a certain type of pizza tastes better than other kinds. An opinion is that "Them damn lib-e-rals want my guns!" An opinion is not whether or not a proven theory can be disproven. As I said in an earlier post, we all live in reality, and reality only follows a certain set of rules. When trying to disprove science, you have to deal in facts, not beliefs.

[Mavorpen]

So am I to take it you have none?

Then via the null hypothesis, God does not exist.

Again, show your work.

Learn what the null hypothesis is first, please. There is no use explaining things to you you won't grasp.

[Williamson]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

Thats not evolution

[Orham]

Evolution is substantiated by so much experimental evidence that it really doesn't require "belief" at this point. The minute details may change in accordance with future observations (such is the way of science), but evolution itself is a strongly-established biological theory which is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Mentioning the uncertainty principle was the biscuit.

It was as obvious as a trail of candy leading to a giant box trap.

[Hurdegaryp]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

And whose puppet might this be?

[Mavorpen]

No. The burden of proof extends outside of science.

Is something false until proven true, or of equal probability to being proved or disproved?

Yes.

[The Tovian Way]

I really don't see why the fact that humans are not as fast, or as strong, or have as good a sense of smell as other creatures presents a problem. We're given what we need; if we needed a stronger sense of smell, the benevolent God would have brought it about for us via the process of evolution. In fact, the Christian theistic evolution proponent can assert that the mechanism of evolution is precisely the means by which God gives to creatures those traits that they need for His purposes.
Further, the vulnerability of our bodies need not present any issue to the Christian, because the Christian does not claim that the physical world is all there is, or even mainly what there is, to the individual's existence. The fact that an individual will die means, to the Christian, only that his soul is separated from his body, not that his existence in any way ends. It is entirely possible that God intended our mortal bodies to be similar to our baby teeth; namely, a facet of our existence we are intended to grow out of and eventually discard.
As for the Big Bang, the formation of planets, abiogenesis or the evolutionary process, I see no reason why such a deity wouldn't utilize such mechanisms; presumably He could have chosen other means, but there is no compelling reason I see here for Him not to choose the means He did.

The plain fact is that if you have an omnibenevolent god that seeks only to make his "chosen people" happy then that does not explain why humans are as flawed as they are. You can't present in the same argument that god is perfect and that he created all that exists, but all that exists is flawed and inefficient.

Christianity does not assert that God seeks only to make his "chosen people" happy, for one. Further, I don't see any reason why an omnibenevolent God would of necessity create all contingent beings as perfect. He might have done so, but if He wants imperfect creatures, I see no reason why He might not bring them about.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Is something false until proven true, or of equal probability to being proved or disproved?

Yes.

So something is false until proven true?

[Riiser-Larsen]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

So the enormous amount of scientific theories going over the evidence and making valid conclusions seems less logical to you than a book that simply states "God created the world in seven days" and then states a series of events which all contradict each other. That doesn't really fit...

[Utceforp]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

Since you utterly fail to grasp how anything works, ever, I'll explain this simply. The only difference between "nothing exploding and causing something" (Which isn't what the Big Bang actually was) and "The Bible", is that instead of an explosion there was a magic flying bearded man.

[Chinese Regions]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

It seems no sense to create the world in 7 or 6 days if one is omnipotent as well as resting on the last day. A all powerful being resting, seriously?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

Do you even know what evolution is?

[Neo Rome Republic]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

http://i.imgur.com/JZNiEBy.png

[Chinese Regions]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

Do you even know what evolution EBILoochun is?

[Orham]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

The big bang and evolution are not synonymous concepts. They're not even talking about the same thing. Evolution is, to put it briefly, a theory to explain the emergence of biological variety and changes therein. The big bang has exactly nothing to do with this discussion.