Do you believe in Evolution?

[Salandriagado]

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 fact. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory. Creationism isn't even a decent hypothesis, as it fails to make testable predictions.

[The Tovian Way]

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.

No, it asserts that there is a supernatural origin and design underlying the natural process; this claim is perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as the theory of evolution makes no claims either that there is such an origin and design, nor that there is not; it merely describes the process.

[SaintB]

Evolution isn't a belief. It's factual. Nothing at all like the silly counter hypothesis that so many ignorant masses stick to.

[Immoren]

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

Languages also evolve.

Nonsense Italians, Spanish and French all clearly speak still Latin.

[New Libertarian States]

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.

1st, which"God"?
Odin?
2nd, there is no proof of it, and it hasn't been observed.

[Kemalist]

I believe in the Grey Wolf Legend. Other races might have come from monkeys, but we came from grey wolves.

Just kidding. Tbh I don't care. I tend to support its being taught in schools since it's opposed by the religious though.

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

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.

Exactly.

[Quandarm]

First off let me introduce myself as a Conservative Christian. Hello!

I do believe in Evolution. It's observable and lovely and all that kind of thing.
I don't however believe in common ancestry.
I also believe in the Bible in it's entirety. That includes the Creation story.

The way I do this is quite simple. God created the bear. Just a standard run of the mill bear. The world at this time was fairly uniform in climate due to a zone of water around the atmosphere and of course, pangea. After Noah's flood, the zone of water was gone and the continents, if they weren't already, had begun drifting. Now Noah had the bear. It moved out and around the world reproducing. As it got trapped on each continent in each climate, it evolved to survive those conditions. This gives us our great animal diversity and also helps with the whole "Two of each kind of animal on one boat" thing.

[The Tovian Way]

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.

Theistic evolution does not make any supernatural claims regarding the actual mechanism of evolution such that it in any way opposes the theory of evolution itself. It merely fills out areas which the theory of evolution does not cover, namely whether or not God exists, whether or not someone initiated evolution, and whether or not someone designed the process of evolution through natural selection so as to bring about a specific result.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

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.

Neither are hypotheses.

Also, one has substantial evidence, the other has none. There is only one conclusion any logical and rational human being can draw from this.

[Chishimotata]

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.

Actually, we have. Your standard Bible is the abridged version, and of course, different sects write up their own editions and made small edits to make their version seem legitimate.

Also, even if you read the abridged version, it's full of contradictions on its own.

[New Libertarian States]

First off let me introduce myself as a Conservative Christian. Hello!

I do believe in Evolution. It's observable and lovely and all that kind of thing.
I don't however believe in common ancestry.
I also believe in the Bible in it's entirety. That includes the Creation story.

The way I do this is quite simple. God created the bear. Just a standard run of the mill bear. The world at this time was fairly uniform in climate due to a zone of water around the atmosphere and of course, pangea. After Noah's flood, the zone of water was gone and the continents, if they weren't already, had begun drifting. Now Noah had the bear. It moved out and around the world reproducing. As it got trapped on each continent in each climate, it evolved to survive those conditions. This gives us our great animal diversity and also helps with the whole "Two of each kind of animal on one boat" thing.

The creation story in the bible for evolution is wrong.
It gets the order for which animals "appeared" wrong.

[Mavorpen]

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

No, it asserts that there is a supernatural origin and design underlying the natural process; this claim is perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as the theory of evolution makes no claims either that there is such an origin and design, nor that there is not; it merely describes the process.

So it asserts something supernatural without asserting something supernatural? Seems legit.

[Fedeledland]

First off let me introduce myself as a Conservative Christian. Hello!

I do believe in Evolution. It's observable and lovely and all that kind of thing.
I don't however believe in common ancestry.
I also believe in the Bible in it's entirety. That includes the Creation story.

The way I do this is quite simple. God created the bear. Just a standard run of the mill bear. The world at this time was fairly uniform in climate due to a zone of water around the atmosphere and of course, pangea. After Noah's flood, the zone of water was gone and the continents, if they weren't already, had begun drifting. Now Noah had the bear. It moved out and around the world reproducing. As it got trapped on each continent in each climate, it evolved to survive those conditions. This gives us our great animal diversity and also helps with the whole "Two of each kind of animal on one boat" thing.

Putting forward: I like your hypothesis better than most creationist ones.

Then again Pangaea's climate was not at all uniform.

[The Onion]

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.

Exactly.

It's just an assumption of most people on both sides of the debate that only one side can work. That's not true - many prominent scientists (not charlatans, actual respected researchers) have acknowledged the existence of some sort of supernatural being. And many religious people have acknowledged the existence of evolution. It's not exclusive.

[Mkuki]

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.

How can you do that when the Bible was heavily edited by Constantine nearly 17 centuries ago?

[Mavorpen]

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

Theistic evolution does not make any supernatural claims regarding the actual mechanism of evolution such that it in any way opposes the theory of evolution itself.

Yes it does. The mechanism being created or maintained by a supernatural being is a unverified claim and is thus not scientific and opposes the theory.

[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.

1) That's not what "hypothesis" means.
2) That's not what "agnosticism" means.

Words, people.

So tell me, what does mean "Agnosticism".

If a person is not an atheist nor a believer, HOW YOU WOULD DEFINE HIM?

[Enadail]

First off let me introduce myself as a Conservative Christian. Hello!

I do believe in Evolution. It's observable and lovely and all that kind of thing.
I don't however believe in common ancestry.
I also believe in the Bible in it's entirety. That includes the Creation story.

The way I do this is quite simple. God created the bear. Just a standard run of the mill bear. The world at this time was fairly uniform in climate due to a zone of water around the atmosphere and of course, pangea. After Noah's flood, the zone of water was gone and the continents, if they weren't already, had begun drifting. Now Noah had the bear. It moved out and around the world reproducing. As it got trapped on each continent in each climate, it evolved to survive those conditions. This gives us our great animal diversity and also helps with the whole "Two of each kind of animal on one boat" thing.

You believe in evolution... but not in evolution.

It hardly explains the "two of each kind" thing, nor does it explain diversity, or the fossil chain, or all the evidence supporting common ancestry. Really, it doesn't explain anything and is shoehorning God and the Bible into evolution to make yourself feel better.

Plus, what is a standard, run of the mill bear? Which bear is it? Why is there no evidence that such an animal existed on Pangaea? Why is there no evidence of a flood? Or that anything happened the way you describe?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

First off let me introduce myself as a Conservative Christian. Hello!

I do believe in Evolution. It's observable and lovely and all that kind of thing.
I don't however believe in common ancestry.
I also believe in the Bible in it's entirety. That includes the Creation story.

The way I do this is quite simple. God created the bear. Just a standard run of the mill bear. The world at this time was fairly uniform in climate due to a zone of water around the atmosphere and of course, pangea. After Noah's flood, the zone of water was gone and the continents, if they weren't already, had begun drifting. Now Noah had the bear. It moved out and around the world reproducing. As it got trapped on each continent in each climate, it evolved to survive those conditions. This gives us our great animal diversity and also helps with the whole "Two of each kind of animal on one boat" thing.

Noah's Ark didn't happen, regardless of your apologist's "explanation".

[The Tovian Way]

No, it asserts that there is a supernatural origin and design underlying the natural process; this claim is perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as the theory of evolution makes no claims either that there is such an origin and design, nor that there is not; it merely describes the process.

So it asserts something supernatural without asserting something supernatural? Seems legit.

Oh, I freely admit it asserts something supernatural. However, the supernatural is not asserted within the context of the process of evolution via natural selection; the supernatural is asserted in adjacent areas, such as the initiation, guide and end goal of the process of evolution via natural selection. The theory of evolution makes no claims in these areas, and within those areas where it does make claims, the theory of evolution is not contradicted at all.

[The Onion]

First off let me introduce myself as a Conservative Christian. Hello!

I do believe in Evolution. It's observable and lovely and all that kind of thing.
I don't however believe in common ancestry.
I also believe in the Bible in it's entirety. That includes the Creation story.

The way I do this is quite simple. God created the bear. Just a standard run of the mill bear. The world at this time was fairly uniform in climate due to a zone of water around the atmosphere and of course, pangea. After Noah's flood, the zone of water was gone and the continents, if they weren't already, had begun drifting. Now Noah had the bear. It moved out and around the world reproducing. As it got trapped on each continent in each climate, it evolved to survive those conditions. This gives us our great animal diversity and also helps with the whole "Two of each kind of animal on one boat" thing.

With just minor changes, that is exactly my point of view.

[Bottle]

No, it asserts that there is a supernatural origin and design underlying the natural process; this claim is perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution, as the theory of evolution makes no claims either that there is such an origin and design, nor that there is not; it merely describes the process.

So it asserts something supernatural without asserting something supernatural? Seems legit.

Normally, the way theists try to get around this is they say that the first "spark" of life was created by their supernatural God and his magics. From there on out, the process occurred naturally. In this way they assert that their beliefs are compatible with evolutionary theory.

I have yet to find one who can explain to me the point at which "life started" in their estimation. First formation of nucleic acids? first cell? first multicellular organism? Never been sure.

[Risottia]

Whoa whoa whoa let's not judge or tell people their beliefs are wrong

Why not? That's the whole point of a debate. Discussing opinions and beliefs.

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

First off let me introduce myself as a Conservative Christian. Hello!

I do believe in Evolution. It's observable and lovely and all that kind of thing.
I don't however believe in common ancestry.
I also believe in the Bible in it's entirety. That includes the Creation story.

The way I do this is quite simple. God created the bear. Just a standard run of the mill bear. The world at this time was fairly uniform in climate due to a zone of water around the atmosphere and of course, pangea. After Noah's flood, the zone of water was gone and the continents, if they weren't already, had begun drifting. Now Noah had the bear. It moved out and around the world reproducing. As it got trapped on each continent in each climate, it evolved to survive those conditions. This gives us our great animal diversity and also helps with the whole "Two of each kind of animal on one boat" thing.

Welcome! And thank you for your opinion.

A few questions I have to ask though. Have you read the original text of the Bible? The Greek in particular. Hebrew came later as a translation from the Greek.

Also, with the Bear, I would like to add that it would rationally make sense that God was behind it's survival. Through being infinitely present in creation, He sustains creation. Evolution can be considered one of these ways it is sustained by God.