Do you believe in Evolution?

[Kantria]

Due to the fact that it might be unaccurate. There is a chance that somewhere along the lines, someone made a vital error.

You know what else is old?

Yep, you guessed it, the Bible and the Quran.

But they were written by God. Therefore, my hair is a bird. Or something like that.

[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.

Then you are wrong.

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

This has never been the case.

due to a zone of water around the atmosphere

And what, pray, is going to hold this water up?

and of course, pangea.

Didn't have anything vaguely resembling a uniform climate. Also, didn't exist for many, many millions of years before humans were a thing.

After Noah's flood, the zone of water was gone and the continents, if they weren't already, had begun drifting.

It is absolutely certain that no such flood ever occurred.

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.

No such genetic bottleneck exists, and evolution does not work anything like that quickly (in bears).

"And what, pray, is going to hold this water up?"
Something magical called "water vapor."
"Didn't have anything vaguely resembling a uniform climate"
True, but that is hardly a counterargument. Maybe the bears all started in one place, and slowly spread out into different areas with different climates.
"It is absolutely certain that no such flood ever occurred"
According to who? And don't cite that one source again. Here's a scientific source that says it might have occurred. Yeah, I know, it's Fox News, whatever.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/12/archaeologist-claims-evidence-noahs-biblical-flood/

[Conkerials]

Its pretty much proven but, do you believe in Evolution? Or do you believe humans never evolved from filthy monkey men?




this thread is probably gonna get locked by the mods

No, it's not proven, don't claim it is when it isn't.

And no, I don't believe in Evolution, because: HOLY SHIT, WE HAVE SIMILAR BUILDS AS MONKIES, WE MUST BE RELATED. Is not valid evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSmTPThWD_c

[Nationalist State of Knox]

It's all nice talking about the bear (even though entire species don't evolve across a few thousand years), but he appears to disregard everything else, especially the other 8.7 million species.

That you honestly think Noah's ark occurred only a thousand years ago means you need to find a more reliable source than the History channel. HOW ABOUT READ THE ACTUAL TEXT!

Oh, I have. However, when it happened is completely unimportant to the entire argument.

[Mavorpen]

False. The theory posits that only natural processes are responsible for it. Anything else is not wcientific and goes against the theory.

The theory of evolution describes the natural processes that take place; it makes no claim as to where these natural processes came from, by whom they were designed, or where such a designer might be guiding the process.

Again, false. The null hypothesis states the theory MUST assume that no deity is responsible for the process.

Please lrn2science

[Salandriagado]

Its pretty much proven but, do you believe in Evolution? Or do you believe humans never evolved from filthy monkey men?




this thread is probably gonna get locked by the mods

No, it's not proven, don't claim it is when it isn't.

I have personally observed it.

And no, I don't believe in Evolution, because: HOLY SHIT, WE HAVE SIMILAR BUILDS AS MONKIES, WE MUST BE RELATED. Is not valid evidence.

Actual evidence, however, is.

[The Armed Republic of Dutch Coolness]

Its pretty much proven but, do you believe in Evolution? Or do you believe humans never evolved from filthy monkey men?




this thread is probably gonna get locked by the mods

No, it's not proven, don't claim it is when it isn't.

And no, I don't believe in Evolution, because: HOLY SHIT, WE HAVE SIMILAR BUILDS AS MONKIES, WE MUST BE RELATED. Is not valid evidence.

Most of our genes being similar, and fossiles are.

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

It's all nice talking about the bear (even though entire species don't evolve across a few thousand years), but he appears to disregard everything else, especially the other 8.7 million species.

That's what true belief is all about: the systematic elimination of all that does not agree with your precious dogmas.

Eh heh, sorry, have to gun you down on that one.

True belief is not dogma centric, though it is nice you would bring that up. Nor does it try to debunk opposition. It takes information presented and fits it into the core belief.

[Mkuki]

Huh? Leonidas surely did write the Bible?

THIS. IS. BIBLE!

That was a pretty good show. Wish they'd done the whole Bible, though. Might've thrown a few people off of religion.

[Volnotova]

No, evolution is theory with evidence.

Evidence please.

See links at top of page 3.

[Kantria]

Its pretty much proven but, do you believe in Evolution? Or do you believe humans never evolved from filthy monkey men?

No, it's not proven, don't claim it is when it isn't.

And no, I don't believe in Evolution, because: HOLY SHIT, WE HAVE SIMILAR BUILDS AS MONKIES, WE MUST BE RELATED. Is not valid evidence.

You're right. Good thing that scientific study of evolution didn't end at superficial observations.

[Enadail]

Its pretty much proven but, do you believe in Evolution? Or do you believe humans never evolved from filthy monkey men?




this thread is probably gonna get locked by the mods

No, it's not proven, don't claim it is when it isn't.

And no, I don't believe in Evolution, because: HOLY SHIT, WE HAVE SIMILAR BUILDS AS MONKIES, WE MUST BE RELATED. Is not valid evidence.

That is one of the best misrepresentations of evolution I've ever seen. Bravo, good man. Well done ignoring mountains of actual evidence.

Evolution is both verified and observed. It is one of if not the best supported theory in science. You have more reason to doubt gravity then evolution.

[Shaggai]

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?

To be fair, most renditions leave out the bit where he fights the dragon.

[Chinese Regions]

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

Languages also evolve.

Languages without life?

[Mkuki]

Its pretty much proven but, do you believe in Evolution? Or do you believe humans never evolved from filthy monkey men?




this thread is probably gonna get locked by the mods

No, it's not proven, don't claim it is when it isn't.

And no, I don't believe in Evolution, because: HOLY SHIT, WE HAVE SIMILAR BUILDS AS MONKIES, WE MUST BE RELATED. Is not valid evidence.

Fun...

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.

[Quandarm]

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.

Why not, when that is the case?

Mostly because it's not civil. Civility in an argument, the way in which a thing is presented, even if your side is wrong, can win you an argument in the eyes of those watching the debate.

[The Tovian Way]

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.

How is it not?
Your saying god (or some supernatural force) guided (or least began) evolution.
That IS inserting the unobserved into the observed.

Within the theory of evolution itself, the mechanisms described are accepted as complete. Evolution via natural selection is accepted, in toto. Once this has been accepted, it further makes supernatural claims which inform the worldview that now incorporates evolution, such as whether or not a personal being instigated evolution, whether or not this personal being is guiding it, and whether or not this personal being is using the process to bring about a specific result.
But if you were to strip away every belief extraneous to the theory of evolution, and ask the theistic evolution proponent point-blank whether he accepts that the mechanisms described by the theory of evolution via natural selection are true, the theistic evolution proponent can say "Yes" without hesitation or reservation. That he also holds other views regarding matters the theory of evolution via natural selection does not address are, ultimately, irrelevant. The theistic evolution proponent says "Evolution and..." instead of "Evolution, except...".

[Salandriagado]

Then you are wrong.



This has never been the case.



And what, pray, is going to hold this water up?



Didn't have anything vaguely resembling a uniform climate. Also, didn't exist for many, many millions of years before humans were a thing.



It is absolutely certain that no such flood ever occurred.



No such genetic bottleneck exists, and evolution does not work anything like that quickly (in bears).

"And what, pray, is going to hold this water up?"
Something magical called "water vapor."

Doesn't work. Inserting that much water vapor into the atmosphere would have killed all life on earth.

"It is absolutely certain that no such flood ever occurred"
According to who? And don't cite that one source again. Here's a scientific source that says it might have occurred. Yeah, I know, it's Fox News, whatever.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/12/archaeologist-claims-evidence-noahs-biblical-flood/

That is not a scientific source. It is not peer reviewed.


Start out with explaining where the water is now. Then explain how the fish survived.

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

That you honestly think Noah's ark occurred only a thousand years ago means you need to find a more reliable source than the History channel. HOW ABOUT READ THE ACTUAL TEXT!

Oh, I have. However, when it happened is completely unimportant to the entire argument.

You read the ancient Greek? Oh this I have to hear.

Besides, the moment you say Noah's ark happened a mere thousand years ago, some one will be bound to take you to point.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

You know what else is old?

Yep, you guessed it, the Bible and the Quran.

But they were written by God. Therefore, my hair is a bird. Or something like that.

You're worth several sparrows, according to Jesus.

I'm glad he was so concerned about establishing a Homo sapiens to passerine bird exchange rate.

[Utceforp]

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.

So the older a theory is, the more reliable it is? I guess that means the world is made from Tiamat's body, humans weren't created by God, they were created by Enki from Kingu's blood, and we should change all references to "Noah's Ark" to "Utnapishtim's Ark", right?

[Enadail]

"And what, pray, is going to hold this water up?"
Something magical called "water vapor."
"Didn't have anything vaguely resembling a uniform climate"
True, but that is hardly a counterargument. Maybe the bears all started in one place, and slowly spread out into different areas with different climates.
"It is absolutely certain that no such flood ever occurred"
According to who? And don't cite that one source again. Here's a scientific source that says it might have occurred. Yeah, I know, it's Fox News, whatever.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/12/archaeologist-claims-evidence-noahs-biblical-flood/

There is plenty of evidence that there were great floods throughout the world, specially as the ice age ended. Its by no means evidence of a global flood submerging the planet to the height of Everest, requiring one man to gather every animal on the planet to save them, wiping out the rest of humanity.

So really, its not evidence for the biblical flood at all.

[Kilobugya]

Do you believe in gravity ? Do you believe in rain ? Evolution is a fact, period.

[Hurdegaryp]

Languages also evolve.

Languages without life?

Thank you for further proving my point, Chinese Regions. Lifeless rock don't communicate, after all. And without communication no language.

[Imeka]

I belive god created the universe and allows it to work in it's own ways, weather it be creationism or evolution.