Do you believe in Evolution?

[Conscentia]

There is a lecture in my signature - you should watch it.

"Lawrence Krauss - A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Instead of Nothing"
That one?

Yes.

[The Tovian Way]

No, because the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is exactly an explanation of why things evolve.

True. And the theistic evolution proponent does not deny this. He merely asserts that God has initiated this evolutionary process, and has so designed it as to bring the world according to His purposes.

[Mavorpen]

Also zero plus zero equals zero, zero times anything equals zero, we have yet to create something out of nothing.

1. That's not evolution.
2. That's a lie. Virtual particles.
3. Nothing almost always produces something because it is unstable.

[Bottle]

Because if you actually teach them instead of stabbing them with harsh words, maybe you would have a better appearance.

Unless we are getting paid to educate them, it isn't our job to actually teach them. In modern age of web, ignorance is a choice.

Yep. I'm a scientist, and specifically a biologist, and even more specifically a developmental neurobiologist, and it's STILL not my fucking job to hand-hold every arrogant Creationist who presumes to critique my field without even so much as being able to define basic terms.

[Neo Rome Republic]

So were all those funny stories about men with beards doing weird stuff that religions are based upon.
You know how it developed, the whole religion business?
'Look, that rock looks like a naked lady!'
'Let's make a story about it!'

Yes, I know. Religion developed as a way to explain what, at the time, was un-explainable. And now that we are advancing with science and can explain more and more without religion, many are tempted to do away with religion.

And rightly so.

[New Libertarian States]

No, because the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is exactly an explanation of why things evolve.

True. And the theistic evolution proponent does not deny this. He merely asserts that God has initiated this evolutionary process, and has so designed it as to bring the world according to His purposes.

There's no proof of that.

[Mavorpen]

No, because the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is exactly an explanation of why things evolve.

True. And the theistic evolution proponent does not deny this. He merely asserts that God has initiated this evolutionary process, and has so designed it as to bring the world according to His purposes.

Which is supernatural and is therefore not evolution by natural selection.

[Conscentia]

It still is happening.

As long as there is life, there is evolution. It just won't stop. It's madness, I tell you!

Languages also evolve.

[Salandriagado]

Then kindly, provide this evidence.

Nothing biological or chemical occurs by an accident. Even cellular mutation can be predicted, example, cancer is not something that just happens, a cancerous cells can be detected at birth and incomplete destruction of such a cell is the start of cancer.

False. Also, evolution is not accidental.

We can not only predict cellular mutation but we can use it to our advantage. Also zero plus zero equals zero, zero times anything equals zero, we have yet to create something out of nothing.

This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Also, 0 = -1 + 1

[The Armed Republic of Dutch Coolness]

So were all those funny stories about men with beards doing weird stuff that religions are based upon.
You know how it developed, the whole religion business?
'Look, that rock looks like a naked lady!'
'Let's make a story about it!'

Yes, I know. Religion developed as a way to explain what, at the time, was un-explainable. And now that we are advancing with science and can explain more and more without religion, many are tempted to do away with religion.

Because there is no need for it. Religion was fun for explaining why you went to war, and some stories by the fire.

[Merriwhether]

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.

The same reason biodiversity recovered after the Permian Mass Extinction, Divergent Evolution.

My second question is, if evolution happened, it should still be happening.

It is.

The physical look of the creature does not matter, but the intellect does.

To a point, you're wrong. Aesthetic features, like the tusks of elephants, as the article explained, do have an effect on their survival, especially against human poachers. Elephants with tusks can be poached for ivory, so the evolutionary loss of tusks is the product of natural selection to preserve their existence. That's evolution.

Why have us human beings, or 'apes' from your people's point of view, have not become much smarter?

If you think of Neanderthals as humans, we did. We had to.
But now that we have society, and technology, we don't need inefficient evolution to preserve the species (not to mention lack of an \selective mechanism besides ourselves).

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.

If you consider that technology is the product of the evolution of the ability to conceive it, yes it does.

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.

Again, it is.

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.

And I challenge you to justifiably refute every grain of evidence we provide.

[Bottle]

Then kindly, provide this evidence.

Nothing biological or chemical occurs by an accident. Even cellular mutation can be predicted, example, cancer is not something that just happens, a cancerous cells can be detected at birth and incomplete destruction of such a cell is the start of cancer. We can not only predict cellular mutation but we can use it to our advantage. Also zero plus zero equals zero, zero times anything equals zero, we have yet to create something out of nothing.

Can you define "cancer"?

You're on the honor system here, no Googling. Just define it in your own words.

[The Tovian Way]

True. And the theistic evolution proponent does not deny this. He merely asserts that God has initiated this evolutionary process, and has so designed it as to bring the world according to His purposes.

There's no proof of that.

I don't need to claim that there is. I'm not here arguing for the truth of theistic evolution, I'm arguing that theistic evolution is exactly as true to the theory of evolution as unguided evolution, because the theory of evolution makes no claims one way or another as regards a personal initiator or guide to the process of evolution; it merely describes the physical and biological mechanisms behind it.

[Fedeledland]

I don't believe in it, because it's a proven scientific fact.

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

How can you deny the existence of the one true god, the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Denying her is to deny reality just look at the Book of Invisible and Lovely Equines, Chapter 2, Verse 34, 'For I, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, am the sustainer of reality.'


Checkmate Odinists

Right... your text was written spur of the moment. The books of the bible are ancient. Documents that have survived can be dated back to the old testament time period and later to around 1000 b.c. The dead sea scrolls are one of the earlier texts that survived. The Quaran likewise is rather old. Same with the Torah. But this invisible book (how in the heck are we supposed to read an invisible book?) is around ten years old at max. Some would like to argue that their spaghetti monster is legitimate because science cannot disprove it, but in reality neither can science disprove the original text in the bible. The English texts are granted to be torn apart to some extent.

Allow me to quote myself. YOU SCIENCE FOLLOW HEARTERS ARE TRYING TO DEBUNK CENTURIES OLD TEXTS AND NO ONE HAS EVEN CARED TO READ THEM IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM?!?! ARE YOU KIDDING?

That none of you have read the bible officially is a sign that you could never truly be able to debunk it when what you are doing is slamming on AN ABRIDGED VERSION. The English format is unreliable. That's why the Jewish kids I've met learned Hebrew. So they don't screw up the Torah the way you Science freak-overs do the entire time.

[State of the Church]

Evolutionism and Creationism are both hypothesis.

Just as the existence or the non-existence of God.

The only right path is the moderate path: Agnosticism.

Against all certainties.

[The Onion]

Yes, I know. Religion developed as a way to explain what, at the time, was un-explainable. And now that we are advancing with science and can explain more and more without religion, many are tempted to do away with religion.

And rightly so.

I am not denying evolution. There is far too much evidence supporting it to simply ignore it. I am saying that evolution can fit together with religion.

[Mavorpen]

There's no proof of that.

I don't need to claim that there is. I'm not here arguing for the truth of theistic evolution, I'm arguing that theistic evolution is exactly as true to the theory of evolution as unguided evolution, because the theory of evolution makes no claims one way or another as regards a personal initiator or guide to the process of evolution; it merely describes the physical and biological mechanisms behind it.

Except for the pesky fact that it invokes supernatural qualities into a natural process.

[The Tovian Way]

True. And the theistic evolution proponent does not deny this. He merely asserts that God has initiated this evolutionary process, and has so designed it as to bring the world according to His purposes.

Which is supernatural and is therefore not evolution by natural selection.

God Himself is supernatural. The theistic evolution proponent asserts that the supernatural God brought about creation by means of evolution through natural selection.

[Bottle]

Evolutionism and Creationism are both hypothesis.

Just as the existence or the non-existence of God.

The only right path is the moderate path: Agnosticism.

Against all certainties.

1) That's not what "hypothesis" means.
2) That's not what "agnosticism" means.
3) Evolution isn't a hypothesis.
4) Neither is Creationism.

Words, people.

[New Libertarian States]

There's no proof of that.

I don't need to claim that there is. I'm not here arguing for the truth of theistic evolution, I'm arguing that theistic evolution is exactly as true to the theory of evolution as unguided evolution, because the theory of evolution makes no claims one way or another as regards a personal initiator or guide to the process of evolution; it merely describes the physical and biological mechanisms behind it.

It's adding a variable that hasn't been observed.
So, it isn't as true as non-thestic evolution

[Neo Rome Republic]

Evolutionism and Creationism are both hypothesis.

Just as the existence or the non-existence of God.

The only right path is the moderate path: Agnosticism.

Against all certainties.

No, evolution is a Scientific theory.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

[Chishimotata]

Evolutionism and Creationism are both hypothesis.

Just as the existence or the non-existence of God.

The only right path is the moderate path: Agnosticism.

Against all certainties.

Wrong. Evolution is both a theory and an observable fact. Creationism is a fairy tale written by some nomads in the middle of nowhere.

[Mavorpen]

Which is supernatural and is therefore not evolution by natural selection.

God Himself is supernatural. The theistic evolution proponent asserts that the supernatural God brought about creation by means of evolution through natural selection.

In other words it posits that it is supernatural. That isn't evolution by natural selection.

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

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.

The problem with your argument is that you talk about evolution as if it happened. It is happening. So right there you have no points whatsoever.