Do you believe in Evolution?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

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.

Utnapishtim is the one person who I envy.

[Tortuga Bay]

This is not a matter of belief. This is about accepting scientific facts or not.

As the Catholic Church is concerned I think Father George Coyne, Jesuit scientist and former head of the Vatican Observatory, represents a reasonable and rational view on that matter, strictly distancing himself from "Intelligent Design" and a literal interpretation of Genesis and saying that the Church has accepted the scientific fact of evolution which does not contradict the belief in God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkS1B0huWX4

[The Onion]

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?

[Latinorium]

Well evolution is only a theory so why should I believe it. Also scientists have been wrong before, like geocentric solar system so this is probably wrong too!!!! _/sarcasm

[Salandriagado]

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

That isn't about the mechanism. The mechanism is genetic selection.

[Neo Rome Republic]

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

It's not our fault you sympathize with fairy tales.

[Volnotova]

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

Yes, keep facepalming and ignore the questions and evidence opposing your point of view.

Also isn't the Bible the Word of God™?

[Torisakia]

No.

I don't believe in creationism either, if you're wondering.

[Katganistan]

Do I believe in science and logic, which has many millions of observed examples thereof, or people jamming their fingers in their ear, closing their eyes, and singing tunelessly, LA LA LA NOT LISTENING.....



Yeah, put me down for Evolution.

[Aquafireland]

I didn't know that the rules allow to insult other beliefs by defining "bullshit" SACRED BOOKS. If I was a muslim I would be offended.

It does. The rules say you can't insult a player directly.

"Atheism is bullshit!" is a valid argument.
"Atheism is bullshit and you're an idiot for believing in it" is a not a valid argument and can get you warnings and even bans.

Correct.

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

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.

Really? I've yet to hear a debate against Gilgamesh or the Odyssey. How in the HELL can you compare the Bible to the Odyssey?!?! The Odyssey itself was written as fiction. Gilgamesh has no connotation or relation to creation, and Enuma Elish is a terrible example.

Next time, be aware that your audience isn't as stupid as you think they are. Much to your disbelief (and horror if that is the case) the Bible has undergone rigorous debate and yet retains
it's substantial nature. That it isn't specific is your problem.

[Christian Democrats]

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

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

That isn't about the mechanism. The mechanism is genetic selection.

Not always. Today, we think that some aspects of Lamarckism might be true.

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

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/nature09491.html

For example, a fat male rat might pass on his acquired fatness to his female offspring.

[SaintB]

To me a refusal to accept evolution is proof that some people haven't evolved.

[Williamson]

i don't see how there are people willing to ignore the scientfic evidence of evolution.

[Mike the Progressive]

This is not a matter of belief. This is about accepting scientific facts or not.

As the Catholic Church is concerned I think Father George Coyne, Jesuit scientist and former head of the Vatican Observatory, represents a reasonable and rational view on that matter, strictly distancing himself from "Intelligent Design" and a literal interpretation of Genesis and saying that the Church has accepted the scientific fact of evolution which does not contradict the belief in God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkS1B0huWX4

Science and religion contradict each other very much. One is based on fact (though the interpretation of that data varies as time goes on) and one is based on faith. And as long as you understand the two are to never meet, I don't think there is anything wrong with holding religious beliefs, and accepting scientific fact as fact.

[Salandriagado]

I didn't know that the rules allow to insult other beliefs by defining "bullshit" SACRED BOOKS. If I was a muslim I would be offended.

It does. The rules say you can't insult a player directly.

"Atheism is bullshit!" is a valid argument.
"Atheism is bullshit and you're an idiot for believing in it" is a not a valid argument and can get you warnings and even bans.

Actually, neither is valid, as there exist possible universes in which their axioms (none) are true and their conclusions (the entire argument in both cases) are false, but otherwise this is correct.

[Surfistan]

Don't take it personal.
It is.

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



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.

I never said the Bible wasn't true, I merely want to state that's it's full off inacurracies, untruths and anachronisms. Wich is why a invisible pink book is far preferable.
Or On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Species in the Struggle for Life is also pretty damn good.

[Kantria]

No.

Why not?

[Salandriagado]

That isn't about the mechanism. The mechanism is genetic selection.

Not always. Today, we think that some aspects of Lamarckism might be true.

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

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/nature09491.html

For example, a fat male rat might pass on his acquired fatness to his female offspring.

Yup. Which we've got covered. As I said: we've got the mechanism down.

[Riiser-Larsen]

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.

Really? I've yet to hear a debate against Gilgamesh or the Odyssey. How in the HELL can you compare the Bible to the Odyssey?!?! The Odyssey itself was written as fiction. Gilgamesh has no connotation or relation to creation, and Enuma Elish is a terrible example.

Next time, be aware that your audience isn't as stupid as you think they are. Much to your disbelief (and horror if that is the case) the Bible has undergone rigorous debate and yet retains
it's substantial nature. That it isn't specific is your problem.

There likely was debate, but it was not conducted by the Vatican, it was conducted by the Sumerians. If your god and beliefs are valid because you have the bible, then you're invalidating all other religions even though they have the same reasons to call their beliefs valid

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

Do I believe in science and logic, which has many millions of observed examples thereof, or people jamming their fingers in their ear, closing their eyes, and singing tunelessly, LA LA LA NOT LISTENING.....

Yeah, put me down for Evolution.

Do I believe in a creator, or the inexplicable... I'll say creator. Do I believe in Evolution or what atheists claim I believe... hmmm, such a hard one

Honestly, the least you could do is debate rather than bash.

[Torisakia]

No.

Why not?

Because I find Pokemon evolution to be much more exciting.

[Christian Democrats]

Not always. Today, we think that some aspects of Lamarckism might be true.

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

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/nature09491.html

For example, a fat male rat might pass on his acquired fatness to his female offspring.

Yup. Which we've got covered. As I said: we've got the mechanism down.

What is the point of evolutionary biology if we've got everything down?

[The Blue Wolf Federation]

Really? I've yet to hear a debate against Gilgamesh or the Odyssey. How in the HELL can you compare the Bible to the Odyssey?!?! The Odyssey itself was written as fiction. Gilgamesh has no connotation or relation to creation, and Enuma Elish is a terrible example.

Next time, be aware that your audience isn't as stupid as you think they are. Much to your disbelief (and horror if that is the case) the Bible has undergone rigorous debate and yet retains
it's substantial nature. That it isn't specific is your problem.

There likely was debate, but it was not conducted by the Vatican, it was conducted by the Sumerians. If your god and beliefs are valid because you have the bible, then you're invalidating all other religions even though they have the same reasons to call their beliefs valid

WHY IN THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING CHRISTIAN STEM FROM THE VATICAN? Ecumenical councils of Niceya.

[Riiser-Larsen]

That isn't about the mechanism. The mechanism is genetic selection.

Not always. Today, we think that some aspects of Lamarckism might be true.

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

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/nature09491.html

For example, a fat male rat might pass on his acquired fatness to his female offspring.

No, they've done studies on these things, and they do not tend to pass on genetically. It's not "genetic" it's that nutrients consumed while pregnant are passed into the child. If a child is receiving more nutrients than the average, then it will be born with above average weight. If it is then raised in an environment where food is readily available and consumed (likely the environment the fat male rat was in) then it will also be fat.