Do you believe in Evolution?

[Surfistan]

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.

Does ancientness make things true? Because I'd like to refer you to, the Gilgamesh Epos, the Edda, the Bhavaghat Gita, the Toa Te Ching, the Vedas, the Dhammapada, why are they less true? They all have profecies, they all claim salvation, they are all written in ancient languages.

It's the IPU's way, or the highway. (To the lair of the Purple Oyster that is.)

As for evolution, Her Invisibleness created Darwin to make sure humans would progress to the certain point where they would make pizza, wich She adores.

May Her hooves always trample in our favour.

[Mavorpen]

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; .

False. It states that a being created the process itself, which ISN'T a part of the theory.

[Wazkyraque]

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.

A.: Because evolutionary trees are trees. Apes still exist because humans and ape have a common ancestor, that ancestor being Old Apes. This is a very common and incredibly basic misunderstanding of how evolution works.

B.: Evolution is still happening, humans still evolve, the changes are very subtle though. People are on average like a foot taller than they were hundreds of years ago. The general IQ is also rising. But evolution is still a somewhat random thing. Humans evolved to enjoy food's that yielded a large amount of calories because food was scarce before the agricultural revolution rather than to enjoy nutritious food, now that evolutionary trait is a disadvantage in first world nations where food is very prevalent. Also humans in various African countries get sickle cell anaemia more often via evolution because it fights malaria. Humans in Bangladesh are starting to evolve an immunity to cholera.

C.: Other animals evolve too, virtually no respected biologist says that humans and apes are the only animals to evolve. Birds evolved from the archaeopteryx. Some species of fish in the Arctic circle have evolved blood that works as a natural antifreeze. Stray dogs in Russian subways are starting to evolve improved navigation abilities in order to keep themselves from getting lost. We have also witnessed evolution happen to certain bacteria.

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

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.

It would help if you would actually discuss.

[Salandriagado]

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.

This is bullshit. The old testament Hebrew vastly predates the Greek variant of any part of it.

[Bottle]

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?

A person is always going to either posses or lack the belief in God. Therefore, any given person can be classed as functionally atheist or theist.

Agnosticism refers to whether or not one believes it is possible to know if God exists, which is an entirely separate topic. There are many agnostic theists, and also many agnostic atheists.

[The Tovian Way]

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.

I did not claim that the creation or maintenance of evolution via natural selection was a scientific claim. I merely claim that it does not oppose in any way the scientific claims made by the theory of evolution.
Theistic evolution is in fact a description of creation which takes into account evolution via natural selection in every area where it makes scientific claims, and also religion/metaphysics in areas where evolution via natural selection makes no scientific claims. It is a synthesis of an accepted scientific theory with a perfectly compatible theistic worldview.

[Risottia]

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.

I'm sure you're aware that paleontological and geological evidence tells that bears didn't exist when there was a Pangea.

Wait wait wait... A ZONE OF WATER AROUND THE ATMOSPHERE?

Surely you're joking, mr.Quandarm.

[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.

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.

You mean the Masoretic from the Septuagint. However, I don't see how that's relevant.

[Galloism]

Hebrew came later as a translation from the Greek.

....

Go to your room and think about what you said.

[Mkuki]

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.

This is bullshit. The old testament Hebrew vastly predates the Greek variant of any part of it.

Probably wasn't talking about the Torah or the Tanakh.

[The Onion]

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.

This is bullshit. The old testament Hebrew vastly predates the Greek variant of any part of it.

This is true, the Hebrew is really the most original version.

[The Tovian Way]

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; .

False. It states that a being created the process itself, which ISN'T a part of the theory.

True, it's not part of the theory of evolution via natural selection. Nor is it contradicted by the theory of evolution via natural selection. The theory of evolution via natural selection makes no claims about the creation of the process itself, it merely describes how it functions.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

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.

Does ancientness make things true? Because I'd like to refer you to, the Gilgamesh Epos, the Edda, the Bhavaghat Gita, the Toa Te Ching, the Vedas, the Dhammapada, why are they less true? They all have profecies, they all claim salvation, they are all written in ancient languages.

It's the IPU's way, or the highway. (To the lair of the Purple Oyster that is.)

As for evolution, Her Invisibleness created Darwin to make sure humans would progress to the certain point where they would make pizza, wich She adores.

May Her hooves always trample in our favour.

You doubt the Epic of Gilgamesh?

[New Libertarian States]

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.

I did not claim that the creation or maintenance of evolution via natural selection was a scientific claim. I merely claim that it does not oppose in any way the scientific claims made by the theory of evolution.
Theistic evolution is in fact a description of creation which takes into account evolution via natural selection in every area where it makes scientific claims, and also religion/metaphysics in areas where evolution via natural selection makes no scientific claims. It is a synthesis of an accepted scientific theory with a perfectly compatible theistic worldview.

Except it's inserting the unobserved(god) into the observed(evolution).

[The Armed Republic of Dutch Coolness]

Hebrew came later as a translation from the Greek.

....

Go to your room and think about what you said.

Huh? Leonidas surely did write the Bible?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Hebrew came later as a translation from the Greek.

....

Go to your room and think about what you said.

He's probably referring to the Masoretic.

[State of the Church]

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.

What happened to Berlusconi at least. Condemned or acquitted?

[Enadail]

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?

As unsure, not as agnostic. But given you can either believe or not believe in God, there is no such thing as someone who is not atheist and is not a believer. You may believe and be unsure or not believe and be unsure, but its a dichotomy.

Theism/Atheism - belief
Gnosticism/Agnosticism - knowledge

Gnostic Theist - believes in God and knows God exists
Agnostic Theist - believes in God but does not know if God exists
Agnostic Atheist - does not believe in god but does not know if God exists
Gnostic Atheist - does not believe in God and knows God does not exist

This is basic English and can be found out pretty easily.

[Hurdegaryp]

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".

His explanation is not one of the best fairytales I've ever read. If you make Scientology's mythology look good in comparison, you're doing it all kinds of wrong.

[Lordanya]

Evolution is not a belief, but a fact, Evolution did happen, and I do not believe in any god.

[Surfistan]

Does ancientness make things true? Because I'd like to refer you to, the Gilgamesh Epos, the Edda, the Bhavaghat Gita, the Toa Te Ching, the Vedas, the Dhammapada, why are they less true? They all have profecies, they all claim salvation, they are all written in ancient languages.

It's the IPU's way, or the highway. (To the lair of the Purple Oyster that is.)

As for evolution, Her Invisibleness created Darwin to make sure humans would progress to the certain point where they would make pizza, wich She adores.

May Her hooves always trample in our favour.

You doubt the Epic of Gilgamesh?

It's a great untruth and an offence in Her name.

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

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.

Does ancientness make things true? Because I'd like to refer you to, the Gilgamesh Epos, the Edda, the Bhavaghat Gita, the Toa Te Ching, the Vedas, the Dhammapada, why are they less true? They all have profecies, they all claim salvation, they are all written in ancient languages.

It's the IPU's way, or the highway. (To the lair of the Purple Oyster that is.)

To put your short termed mind at ease, the age of texts allows for challenging and discussing much the same way we're doing right now. However, since the texts survived and have been upheld by countless generations of discussion, it is much more difficult to accept this invisible book.

So in answer, no. Ancientness does not make it true. It makes it reliable as well as to date with the time in which it was conceived so to speak.

[Quandarm]

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.

Technically, debate is arguing for and against certain points and opinions. It's not saying that someone is wrong and that their entire system of beliefs is also wrong.

[The Tovian Way]

I did not claim that the creation or maintenance of evolution via natural selection was a scientific claim. I merely claim that it does not oppose in any way the scientific claims made by the theory of evolution.
Theistic evolution is in fact a description of creation which takes into account evolution via natural selection in every area where it makes scientific claims, and also religion/metaphysics in areas where evolution via natural selection makes no scientific claims. It is a synthesis of an accepted scientific theory with a perfectly compatible theistic worldview.

Except it's inserting the unobserved(god) into the observed(evolution).

It is not inserting God into anything; insofar as the theory of evolution via natural selection makes scientific claims, theistic evolution accepts these claims. That it further makes non-scientific claims which impact but do not contradict the theory of evolution via natural selection does not in any way place the two in conflict. Theistic evolution is a perfect synthesis of the theory of evolution via natural selection and a theistic worldview which incorporates a creating and sustaining deity.