Do you believe in Evolution?

[Salandriagado]

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.

No, there's nothing inherently uncivil about saying that everything that somebody says is wrong. If you build your entire belief system around the belief that 1+1=3, then I'm going to tell you it's all bullshit. There is nothing uncivil about that.

[The Onion]

"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 It is not peer reviewed.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.

"Start out with explaining where the water is now"
Pick an ocean. Any ocean.
"Then explain how the fish survived."
Fish like water.

[Neo Rome Republic]

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.

No, there's nothing inherently uncivil about saying that everything that somebody says is wrong. If you build your entire belief system around the belief that 1+1=3, then I'm going to tell you it's all bullshit. There is nothing uncivil about that.

Careful, you might hurt their feelings. Like telling a kid there is no Santa.

[Utceforp]

"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.

From what I've heard, the most likely origin for the flood myth was a large, but nowhere near the size of the biblical one, flood in Mesopotamia, which got made into the Sumerian flood myth before spreading to other cultures and subsequently getting exaggerated to the size it is in the bible.

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

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?

Barrel of laughs right now.
The constant debating and discussion that scientists take with their theories is the same that the books of the Bible have undergone for countless centuries. Therefore, as much as you can support science for it's theories, likewise you can support the books of the Bible.

[Salandriagado]

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



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.

"Start out with explaining where the water is now"
Pick an ocean. Any ocean.

There isn't enough water there. Flooding the world to that degree would require filling those oceans, then adding an absurd amount of extra water on top of that. Like, enough water that if it fell in 40 days and 40 nights, it would have crushed any wooden boat to matchwood.

"Then explain how the fish survived."
Fish like water.

Fresh or salt water?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

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.

Where did I assert I had read the original Septuagint?

Also, if we follow Biblical chronology, it did happen a few thousand years ago. You'll no doubt complain about my "literalist interpretation", despite the fact that believing that Noah's Ark actually happened is actually more ridiculous than believing the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

[Enadail]

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



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.

"Start out with explaining where the water is now"
Pick an ocean. Any ocean.
"Then explain how the fish survived."
Fish like water.

Fish also like particular levels of saline.

That much water added to the oceans would greatly desalinate the oceans, killing off salt water fish, and would reduce oxygen levels like mad, killing off all ocean life.

[The Tovian Way]

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

The null hypothesis does not make this claim. It prevents the scientist from making supernatural (or other non-empirically verifiable) claims within a scientific theory, either that God is responsible for the mechanisms described in evolution via natural selection, or that God is not responsible for these mechanisms. It is simply a framework which allows scientific theories to incorporate only scientific (i.e. empirically verifiable) evidence.

[Salandriagado]

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?

Barrel of laughs right now.
The constant debating and discussion that scientists take with their theories is the same that the books of the Bible have undergone for countless centuries. Therefore, as much as you can support science for it's theories, likewise you can support the books of the Bible.

This is not the case in any way, shape or form. At all.

[Hurdegaryp]

"Start out with explaining where the water is now"
Pick an ocean. Any ocean.
"Then explain how the fish survived."
Fish like water.

This would be the same water that rose so high that even the highest mountains were drowned? Fun fact: there has never been enough water on this blue planet to make that even remotely possible. But since creationism is all about denial, feel free to ignore that fact.

[State of the Church]

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

I believe in whathever I want.

Science is all for you, not for me.

Period.

[The Onion]

"Start out with explaining where the water is now"
Pick an ocean. Any ocean.

There isn't enough water there. Flooding the world to that degree would require filling those oceans, then adding an absurd amount of extra water on top of that. Like, enough water that if it fell in 40 days and 40 nights, it would have crushed any wooden boat to matchwood.

"Then explain how the fish survived."
Fish like water.

Fresh or salt water?

The Noah's Ark story, I believe, is exaggerated slightly. And fish like both fresh and salt water. Different types of fish like different types of water.

[Neo Rome Republic]

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

Please lrn2science

The null hypothesis does not make this claim. It prevents the scientist from making supernatural (or other non-empirically verifiable) claims within a scientific theory, either that God is responsible for the mechanisms described in evolution via natural selection, or that God is not responsible for these mechanisms. It is simply a framework which allows scientific theories to incorporate only scientific (i.e. empirically verifiable) evidence.

A claim on the origin of life or the universe has a scientific burden of proof.

[Enadail]

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?

Barrel of laughs right now.
The constant debating and discussion that scientists take with their theories is the same that the books of the Bible have undergone for countless centuries. Therefore, as much as you can support science for it's theories, likewise you can support the books of the Bible.

No, no its not. When scientists debate, they use evidence, they offer their results up to be tested and reproduced, and only win their debate when they have shown sufficient information to show they're right.

There's really nothing to support the books of the Bible from a supernatural perspective.

[New Libertarian States]

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...".

EXCEPT THE "It happened naturally"PART.
Which isn't the theory of evolution in it's actual form.

[The Tovian Way]

The null hypothesis does not make this claim. It prevents the scientist from making supernatural (or other non-empirically verifiable) claims within a scientific theory, either that God is responsible for the mechanisms described in evolution via natural selection, or that God is not responsible for these mechanisms. It is simply a framework which allows scientific theories to incorporate only scientific (i.e. empirically verifiable) evidence.

A claim on the origin of life or the universe requires a scientific burden of proof.

It does within a scientific theory. The theistic aspect of theistic evolution, the part that addresses the origin, guide and purpose of evolution via natural selection, is not a scientific theory.

[Salandriagado]

There isn't enough water there. Flooding the world to that degree would require filling those oceans, then adding an absurd amount of extra water on top of that. Like, enough water that if it fell in 40 days and 40 nights, it would have crushed any wooden boat to matchwood.



Fresh or salt water?

The Noah's Ark story, I believe, is exaggerated slightly.

No, it's just bullshit.

And fish like both fresh and salt water. Different types of fish like different types of water.

Yup. So if the water was fresh, then all saltwater fish would have died, and if it was saline, then all freshwater fish would have died. Take your pick. (I'm even allowing you to assume that this water was magically oxygenated, and ignoring all of the depth issues).

[Enadail]

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

I believe in whathever I want.

Science is all for you, not for me.

Period.

Science is the core of life for everyone, otherwise you wouldn't be eating, using electricity, be living in a home, etc. Science is literally the center of every day life.

And you are welcome to believe whatever you want, so long as you don't perpetrate it as fact without evidence.

[Surfistan]

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

I didn't realise my biography was so unbelievable.

Don't take it personal.
It is.

Contains no socks and pizza whatsoever, wich makes it bad reading for Her.

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 what your actually saying is that you have no idea what you're saying, so to speak?
Because if it's reliable, then why have I not seen proof of Kali, the Black Demoness, her influence upon the times?

Oh and it's not invisible, it's pink and invisible, I believe in the word of Her Hooviness and it's pink because She is, and I know it's invisible because I can't see it.

As to further on evolution Her Holy Words also tells us She made platypusses, because a few days before that She made marijuana and thought it was a fun idea, She also told us it failed since it doesn't fly.

[Mavorpen]

The null hypothesis does not make this claim.

This is a pure, boldfaced lie. The null hypothsis are specific claims that you must test against and prove wrong when trying to support your own. The null hypothesis always claims that X does not occur or exist. In the case of natural selection it claims that God did not create natural selection..

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

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.

Where did I assert I had read the original Septuagint?

Also, if we follow Biblical chronology, it did happen a few thousand years ago. You'll no doubt complain about my "literalist interpretation", despite the fact that believing that Noah's Ark actually happened is actually more ridiculous than believing the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

Well, when I ask if you've read the actual Texts and you say yes, most people would take you for your word. The original Text is what you are critically lacking in your argument. Besides, according to biblical chronology, the time at which Adam and Eve were first created was not given. Nor was Noah's ark, nor Samson, Nor David, Nor the prophets. They never gave dates so saying that they did is utter bull crap.

[Neo Rome Republic]

A claim on the origin of life or the universe requires a scientific burden of proof.

It does within a scientific theory. The theistic aspect of theistic evolution, the part that addresses the origin, guide and purpose of evolution via natural selection, is not a scientific theory.

It's a hypothesis, so it has a Scientific burden of proof. As it is a claim on the origin of life and the universe.

[The Tovian Way]

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...".

EXCEPT THE "It happened naturally"PART.
Which isn't the theory of evolution in it's actual form.

Evolution does not make any claim whatsoever about how the processes of evolution via natural selection themselves emerged, whether there is a supernatural guide behind them, or whether there is a supernatural purpose for them. It merely describes the processes of evolution via natural selection.

[Hurdegaryp]

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

I believe in whathever I want.

Science is all for you, not for me.

Period.

Then why are you using technological devices in order to access the internet? Sounds like you're making use of the many fruits of science. Doesn't that make you a bit of a hypocrite, hm?