Do you believe in Evolution?

[Utceforp]

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.

The scientific method was not used to debate the Bible. Nobody has ever tested whether or not the Bible is true through experimentation. Also, I'm sure there was tons of debate and discussion surrounding the Enuma Elish, and the Odyssey, the Book of the Dead, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, et cetera, et cetera. That doesn't mean they're right.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

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

No, it's just wrong.

[Christian Democrats]

Evolution is a fact. Of course, I believe in it.

The only questions left surround the mechanisms by which it occurs.

[The Tovian Way]

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.

It is not a hypothesis; it does not claim to be so, because it does not claim to be empirically verifiable.

[Tagete]

I know evolution is correct.

[Salandriagado]

Evolution is a fact. Of course, I believe in it.

The only questions left surround the mechanisms by which it occurs.

No, we've pretty much got the mechanism down.

[The Onion]

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).

Hey, maybe some fish were fine with both, and maybe they evolved.

[Volnotova]

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.

How did the plant life survive?

How did various species of fungi, bacteria and etc. survive?

How did millions of different species fit on a ship who's volume was smaller than the titanic?

[Salandriagado]

No, it's just bullshit.



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).

Hey, maybe some fish were fine with both, and maybe they evolved.

There hasn't been anything vaguely resembling enough time for that to occur.

You still haven't explained where the water is now.

[Utceforp]

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.

It is not a hypothesis; it does not claim to be so, because it does not claim to be empirically verifiable.

Well then what are we debating about? If it can't be proven, and it contradicts something that has been proven, we should automatically assume it isn't true. That's just common sense.

[Conscentia]

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.

Science would have you admit that one's knowledge is limited rather than assert that the supernatural must be responsible.

[Neo Rome Republic]

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.

It is not a hypothesis; it does not claim to be so, because it does not claim to be empirically verifiable.

Doesn't matter, it makes a claim on how life started, how the universe came to be. It does by default have a Scientific burden of proof.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

[Volnotova]

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.

In other words why are you still here?

[Hurdegaryp]

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.

The scientific method was not used to debate the Bible. Nobody has ever tested whether or not the Bible is true through experimentation. Also, I'm sure there was tons of debate and discussion surrounding the Enuma Elish, and the Odyssey, the Book of the Dead, and the Epic of Gilgamesh, et cetera, et cetera. That doesn't mean they're right.

Indeed. But when you're a teenage creationist, you tend to have a poor grasp on such subjects. Of course that won't stop said teenage creationist to have opinions about them. Being unhindered by knowledge is seen as an advantage by some, which is really sad.

[Mike the Progressive]

I believe in life after love...

[The Onion]

Hey, maybe some fish were fine with both, and maybe they evolved.

There hasn't been anything vaguely resembling enough time for that to occur.

You still haven't explained where the water is now.

I've said, the story is exaggerated. Big surprise. It's been passed down for thousands of years.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

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.

I haven't read the Ancient Greek Old Testament, so? Have you?

Also, I'm not saying they give dates, I'm asserting Biblical chronology from Adam onwards is what we can use to deduce the actual literal date of creation, as many have.

[Utceforp]

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

How did the plant life survive?

How did various species of fungi, bacteria and etc. survive?

How did millions of different species fit on a ship who's volume was smaller than the titanic?

"How did millions of different species fit on a ship who's volume was smaller than the titanic?"

NoahUtnapishtim's Ark was a TARDIS. Duh.

As for your other questions, A Wizard Did It. Duh.

[Volnotova]

There hasn't been anything vaguely resembling enough time for that to occur.

You still haven't explained where the water is now.

I've said, the story is exaggerated. Big surprise. It's been passed down for thousands of years.

So tell us, what is the real story of the flood? What was it's extend?

[Conscentia]

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.

It is not a hypothesis; it does not claim to be so, because it does not claim to be empirically verifiable.

The origin and mechanisms of evolution are empirically verifiable.

[New Libertarian States]

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.

"Natural selection"
Pretty sure it's saying its saying it happened naturally.

[Mkuki]

I believe in whathever I want.

Science is all for you, not for me.

Period.

In other words why are you still here?

I don't get this attitude. How can you say you don't approve of science when you're using it's results every single day?

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

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.

I never said it was true in reference to your statement, nor do I have no idea what I'm saying. You do which is partly why you're in a fit. From an atheistic stand point, the Bible is not true. It is however more reliable than your invisible pink book(if that's even possible). Regardless, your book has yet to be debated under a serious and non jovial light.

[Salandriagado]

There hasn't been anything vaguely resembling enough time for that to occur.

You still haven't explained where the water is now.

I've said, the story is exaggerated. Big surprise. It's been passed down for thousands of years.

If you mean "there was a minor local flood, then somebody came up with some bullshit mythology about it", then yes, but you don't have anything vaguely resembling wiping out a significant percentage of life on earth, or needing some bloke to save it all.


You can also explain why the Egyptian Middle Kingdom didn't notice being entirely wiped out half way through its existence, if you like.

[Christian Democrats]

Evolution is a fact. Of course, I believe in it.

The only questions left surround the mechanisms by which it occurs.

No, we've pretty much got the mechanism down.

Not really. There are still competing theories on that forefront. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologenome_theory_of_evolution