Do you believe in Evolution?

[Neo Rome Republic]

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.

So, God of the gaps.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

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

[The Ben Boys]

As a means of origin? Dunno. I wasn't around back then, so for all I know God could've created microorganisms and the whole "seven days" thing could be a metaphor/seven billion years for what it's worth.

Seven billion years of evolution?! Holy geology, Batman!

Yes, evolution can happen in seven billion years or a hundred thousands years or fourteen billion years... I was throwing out a number, unless of course I'm caught totally unaware and evolution can only happen on a specific timetable and isn't gradual.

[Merriwhether]

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

The Geocentric model was based on theistic notion that God had placed us at the center of the Universe, which to humans of the time was definitively only what we could observe (the Solar System and constellations). Copernicus was a scientist, and he was ridiculed, alongside Galileo, by the church for their beliefs that the Sun was the center of the "universe" because it violated a premise that had been held by Roman Catholicism for centuries.

I know, sarcasm, just trying to pack up the silverware, so to speak, so someone doesn't actually try to use it literally. I know how NSG can be sometimes...

[New Libertarian States]

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.

Hmmm....
Do I believe in something very explainable, or something written by a people who believe in a god that's rehashed from another god.
Hard choice

[Mavorpen]

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?

Applying our knowledge to how certain aspects of biological systems arose and function.

Really now, is that difficult?

[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

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.

The scripture does not contain science and it is not about science. Science and religion have nothing to do with each other and should not be brought together. So I agree, there is nothing wrong with accepting scientific facts on the one hand and holding religious beliefs on the other. There is no innate relationship between the two unless some freaks draw them and try to sell Bronze Age scriptures as a scientific basis of anything.

[Surfistan]

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.

So, God of the gaps.

Wich is problematic, because eventually you start running out of gaps.

[Salandriagado]

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?

To investigate other aspects. The mechanism is something we've pretty much done.


You argument is equivalent to "what is the point of studying stars if we've got star formation down".

[Riiser-Larsen]

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.

It doesn't stem from the Vatican, but which society studying Christianity has been wielded the most power historically? The Vatican, not the first ecumenical council.

[Christian Democrats]

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

To investigate other aspects. The mechanism is something we've pretty much done.


You argument is equivalent to "what is the point of studying stars if we've got star formation down".

We still don't have down the mechanisms of astronomy and cosmology.

[Mkuki]

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

It doesn't stem from the Vatican, but which society studying Christianity has been wielded the most power historically? The Vatican, not the first ecumenical council.

Actually, that would be the Council. What with the RCC's teachings and dogma being descended from the rulings of said Council.

[Kantria]

Seven billion years of evolution?! Holy geology, Batman!

Yes, evolution can happen in seven billion years or a hundred thousands years or fourteen billion years... I was throwing out a number, unless of course I'm caught totally unaware and evolution can only happen on a specific timetable and isn't gradual.

Well, it'd be tough for life to evolve on a planet for over two and a half billion years (give or take) before that planet existed. I mean, if you're going to create a planet and then fill it with the building blocks for life to evolve on its own, you'd start by creating the planet first, right?

[Salandriagado]

To investigate other aspects. The mechanism is something we've pretty much done.


You argument is equivalent to "what is the point of studying stars if we've got star formation down".

We still don't have down the mechanisms of astronomy and cosmology.

Precisely. There are many other areas of evolutionary biology other than studying the mechanism of evolution. Just the same as there are many other areas of astronomy and cosmology than studying the mechanism of stellar formation.

[Hurdegaryp]

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.

So, God of the gaps.

The more we fill in the gaps, the smaller God becomes.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

So, God of the gaps.

The more we fill in the gaps, the smaller God becomes.

I'd assert there are no gaps anymore, yet the theists assert there are in order to justify their continued belief in god.

[Surfistan]

So, God of the gaps.

The more we fill in the gaps, the smaller God becomes.

MiniGod, fits in your pocket and does your homework.

[Utceforp]

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? 1. I've yet to hear a debate against Gilgamesh or the Odyssey. How in the HELL can you compare the Bible to the Odyssey?!?! 2. The Odyssey itself was written as fiction. 3. Gilgamesh has no connotation or relation to creation, 4. and Enuma Elish is a terrible example.

5. 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.

1. The reason there's never been an argument against Gilgamesh was because when it was believed there wasn't any way to determine that it might not have been true. (e.g., nobody knew enough about how reproduction works to even fathom the concept of evolution, shown when Gilgamesh is claimed to be "two-thirds god".) The Bible and the myths it contains are outdated leftovers from that time when religion was the only option, and there have been debates against it because it has held on long enough for scientists to discover things that contradicted religion.
2. The Odyssey was a written account of something people actually believed happened. (The Trojan War, the various Olympian Gods, et cetera) The romans believed that they were descended from the survivors of Troy, which is why they didn't like the greeks very much.
3. The Epic of Gilgamesh involves the character Utnapishtim, who plays the role of Noah in the Sumerian flood myth.
4. Why is Enuma Elish a terrible example? It's the oldest creation story known, and almost definitely the oldest creation story written down.
5. Despite these debates, the Bible hasn't changed since it first spread across Europe. When scientists are proven wrong they change their theory, when the Bible is proven wrong people ignore the person who proved them wrong.

[Neo Rome Republic]

The more we fill in the gaps, the smaller God becomes.

I'd assert there are no gaps anymore, yet the theists assert there are in order to justify their continued belief in god.

Have we figured out the origin of the universe yet? While the gap is small I regretfully say, it's still there.

[Riiser-Larsen]

The more we fill in the gaps, the smaller God becomes.

I'd assert there are no gaps anymore, yet the theists assert there are in order to justify their continued belief in god.

There are a few gaps. We still don't understand where the matter involved in the big bang came from. When it comes to the evolution debate though, they're using really old information, we've found the "missing link" yet they still accuse us of not having it.

[Aquafireland]

Nice achievment indicator. How did you make it?

[The Tovian Way]

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.

Theistic evolution does not contradict anything that has been proven. It accepts the theory of evolution via natural selection as factual, and further expands on matters which are not covered in the theory 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.

The theistic evolution proponent needn't claim that the supernatural must be responsible. He merely claims that the supernatural is responsible. Science does not preclude this.

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.

Theistic evolution makes a supernatural claim about the origin of life. However, it accepts fully the scientific explanation of the evolutionary mechanisms by which life came about, it merely also asserts that this was by the design of a supernatural being.

The origin and mechanisms of evolution are empirically verifiable.

Theistic evolution does not in any way contradict the theory of evolution via natural selection in any of its scientific claims. It merely makes a claim as to a supernatural instigation, design and purpose behind these empirically verifiable origins and mechanisms.

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

Indeed it is. And the theistic evolution proponent further claims that all of nature, including the processes of natural selection, ultimately have a supernatural origin, design and purpose.

[Riiser-Larsen]

I'd assert there are no gaps anymore, yet the theists assert there are in order to justify their continued belief in god.

Have figured out the origin of the universe yet?

Just because one answer is possible, does not make it the only possible answer. Yes, it is possible an intelligent being created all matter for the universe. Is that the only explanation? No.

[The House of Petain]

The more we fill in the gaps, the smaller God becomes.

I'd assert there are no gaps anymore, yet the theists assert there are in order to justify their continued belief in god.

There will always be gaps. But gaps do not necessarily mean they are filled by God.

[Aquafireland]

Why not?

Because I find Pokemon evolution to be much more exciting.

Agreed.