Remember - Evolution is only theory, not a scientific law

[Kalaron]

Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific. A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted. And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:

Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from

Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.

The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.

[spoiler=OP's opinion]Creationist. Period.[/spoiler]

Seems pretty damn clear to me.
If there's a one in a million chance you'll live if someone shoots you, does that mean that you have to be dead, with no exception?
Mutations like you said can be harmful, doesn't mean they all are.
The real way to be sure is to ask questions about everything, for example, If god created the Universe, why didn't he talk to everyone?
Why was only Abraham spoken too if God loved us all?
Why is there evil men and women if God loves us?
Why allow for such freedom of thought if you know the end result will be the children you love going to hell?
God seems like a poor choice, and I will always choose the path of Logic rather than the path of "Well you can't explain this!"
Creation has a load of bumpkis from their own book, and a history mostly forgotten, and if you believe that they are right because of it, than you should believe in Zeus and Ra and the like.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

So we are going for the "universe is nothing, but a dream of God" theory?

BRB achieving CHIM.

Say hello to Talos for me.

[Neutraligon]

So...the media doesn't matter in areas of science (yay support from other institutions).

To be fair the whole conspiracy theory of corrupt media pretty much is why people believe climate scientists get paid to supposedly fudge results.

True...which only goes to show they don't know how science works.

[Kasterborous Gallifrey]

Philosophically speaking, how can we be sure that we truly even exist, or that the world we experience isn't really just an illusion?

We cannot discern anything without our senses. What if our senses are inaccurate? Something to think about.

[USS Monitor]

All of which has been roundly debunked. It is all either misunderstanding (intentionally or not) what evolution is, quote mining people, lies, scientific inaccuracies, etc. Oh and...none of it is evidence for Creation.


You going to respond to people who responded to the OP?

I challenge you to look at all 8500 articles and debunk all of them here

What's that fallacy where you try to win arguments by just spewing so much crap that it's too time-consuming for your opponents to refute all of it?

[Korhal IVV]

Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific. A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted. And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:

Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from

Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.

The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.

[spoiler=OP's opinion]Creationist. Period.[/spoiler]

Seems pretty damn clear to me.
If there's a one in a million chance you'll live if someone shoots you, does that mean that you have to be dead, with no exception?
Mutations like you said can be harmful, doesn't mean they all are.
The real way to be sure is to ask questions about everything, for example, If god created the Universe, why didn't he talk to everyone?
Why was only Abraham spoken too if God loved us all?
Why is there evil men and women if God loves us?
Why allow for such freedom of thought if you know the end result will be the children you love going to hell?
God seems like a poor choice, and I will always choose the path of Logic rather than the path of "Well you can't explain this!"
Creation has a load of bumpkis from their own book, and a history mostly forgotten, and if you believe that they are right because of it, than you should believe in Zeus and Ra and the like.

The real way to be sure is to ask questions about everything, for example, If god created the Universe, why didn't he talk to everyone?
Why should he?
Why was only Abraham spoken too if God loved us all?
Abraham is a chosen one
Why is there evil men and women if God loves us?
Pyschological problems and the type of enviroment they grow up in
Why allow for such freedom of thought if you know the end result will be the children you love going to hell?
Convert them then, then they won't go hellbound

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific. A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted. And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:

Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from

Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.

The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.

[spoiler=OP's opinion]Creationist. Period.[/spoiler]

Seems pretty damn clear to me.
If there's a one in a million chance you'll live if someone shoots you, does that mean that you have to be dead, with no exception?
Mutations like you said can be harmful, doesn't mean they all are.
The real way to be sure is to ask questions about everything, for example, If god created the Universe, why didn't he talk to everyone?
Why was only Abraham spoken too if God loved us all?
Why is there evil men and women if God loves us?
Why allow for such freedom of thought if you know the end result will be the children you love going to hell?
God seems like a poor choice, and I will always choose the path of Logic rather than the path of "Well you can't explain this!"
Creation has a load of bumpkis from their own book, and a history mostly forgotten, and if you believe that they are right because of it, than you should believe in Zeus and Ra and the like.

This is so terrible it belongs on /r/bad_religion.
1) The Bible is not a book, but rather an anthology with no universal narrative.

2) The whole point of the creation story (at least from the Jewish perspective) is the establishment of humanity, and nothing else.

3) God speaking to Abraham had nothing to do with love nor is the problem of evil related to llove.

4) Hell didn't even exist in the Jewish Scriptures so stop tying Abraham into this.

5) Relying solely on logic is foolish as humanity is not only inherently irrational, but we aren't vulcans.

[Gravlen]

Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;

Incorrect.

"The big organising principles of science are theories, coherent systems of thought that explain huge numbers of otherwise isolated facts, which have survived strenuous testing deliberately designed to break them if they do not accord with reality. They have not been merely accepted as some act of scientific faith: instead, people have tried to falsify them - to prove them wrong - but have so far failed. These failures do not prove that the theory is true, because there are always new sources of potential discord. Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation, in conjunction with his laws of motion, was - and still is - good enough to explain the movements of the planets, asteroids and other bodies of the solar system in intricate detail, with high accuracy. But in some contexts, such as black holes, it has now been replaced by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Wait a few decades, and something else will surely replace that. There are plenty of signs that all is not well at the frontiers of physics.

When cosmologists have to postulate bizarre `dark matter' to explain why galaxies don't obey the known laws of gravity, and then throw in even weirder `dark energy' to explain why galaxies are moving apart at an increasing rate, and when the independent evidence for these two powers of darkness is pretty much non-existent, you can smell the coming paradigm shift.

Most science is incremental, but some is more radical. Newton's theory was one of the great breakthroughs of science - not a shower of rain disturbing the surface of the lake, but an intellectual storm that unleashed a raging torrent. Darwin's Watch is about another intellectual storm: the theory of evolution. Darwin did for biology what Newton had done for physics, but in a very different way. Newton developed mathematical equations that let physicists calculate numbers and test them to many decimal places; it was a quantitative theory. Darwin's idea is expressed in words, not equations, and it describes a qualitative process, not numbers. Despite that, its influence has been at least as great as Newton's, possibly even greater. Darwin's torrent still rages today.

Evolution, then, is a theory, one of the most influential, farreaching and important theories ever devised. In this context, it's worth pointing out that the word `theory' is often used in a quite different sense, to mean an idea that is proposed in order to be tested. Strictly speaking, the word that should be used here is `hypothesis', but that's such a fussy, pedantic-sounding word that people tend to avoid it. Even scientists, who should know better. `I have a theory,' they say. No, you have a hypothesis. It will take years, possibly centuries, of stringent tests, to turn it into a theory.

The theory of evolution was once a hypothesis. Now it is a theory. Detractors seize on the word and forget its dual use. `Only a theory,' they say dismissively. But a true theory cannot be so easily dismissed, because it has survived so much rigorous testing. In this respect there is far more reason to take the theory of evolution seriously than any explanation of life that depends on, say, religious faith, because falsification is not high on the religious agenda. Theories, in that sense, are the best established, most credible parts of science. They are, by and large, considerably more credible than most other products of the human mind. So what these people are thinking of when they chant their dismissive slogan should actually be `only a hypothesis'.

That was a defensible position in the early days of the theory of evolution, but today it is merely ignorant. If anything can be a fact, evolution is. It may have to be inferred from clues deposited in the rocks, and more recently by comparing the DNA codes of different creatures, rather than being seen directly with the naked eye in real time, but you don't need an eyewitness account to make logical deductions from evidence. The evidence, from several independent sources (such as fossils and DNA), is overwhelming. Evolution has been established so firmly that our planet makes no sense at all without it. Living creatures can, and do, change over time. The fossil record shows that they have changed substantially over long periods of time, to the extent that entirely new species have arisen. Smaller changes can be observed today, over periods as short as a year, or mere days in bacteria.

Evolution happens."

- Ian Stewart

Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter

Not a flaw, as it doesn't concern itself with the origin of matter.

Would you say the theory of gravity is flawed for the same reason?

Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from

Not a flaw, as these are two different things. Also, the bit about most being harmful is not necessarily true.

Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.

or which God we're talking about, or how He/She/They/It created anything, or why the laws of physics doesn't apply, or why the scientific method should be ignored, or...

The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.

[spoiler=OP's opinion]Creationist. Period.[/spoiler]

Seeing the OP's responses in the thread it's obvious that it has been created in bad faith, and that there's no genuine interest in debate.

[Empire of Donner land]

"Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from"

Because harmful mutations kill off animals who get them. Meaning that good mutations (lower metabolism, thicker fur, white skin/black skin) stay in based on the environment the organism is in and therefore live on to reproduce and the mutation is spread through the offspring. You're only reading part of the story.

It's like you don't even know what Darwinism is even.

[USS Monitor]

"Some guy thousands of years ago said so," is not evidence, or at least not evidence that should be taken seriously.

You can just reconcile the two theories together like the Catholic Church did.

You can. Why should we?

[Kilobugya]

Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws.

No. Evolution is a scientific theory, which is the highest "level" anything can reach in science (so not "just"), like the theory of gravitation or the theory of electromagnetism. Creation is an hypothesis not backed by any evidence.

They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific.

There is an enormous amount of scientific evidence for evolution, from fossils records to anatomy to development of the fetus to structure of DNA to the fact that we actually observe it. There is no scientific for creation in any way.

Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter

That's not a flaw of evolution - that's just outside its scope. That the theory of gravitation doesn't explain nuclear reactions isn't a flaw of the theory, it's outside its scope. Evolution explains how simple, primitive life forms can evolve during billions of years to become complex and varied life forms as we know them - what happens before the first primitive life forms is outside its scope.

Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from

*Most* mutations are harmful. But billions of years, trillions of life forms, and you'll get enough positive ones.

Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.

Doesn't explain the fossils records, doesn't explain the similarities and differences in DNA between organisms, doesn't explain why we have basically the same skeleton than all other mammals, doesn't explain why our vagus nerve is so long, and countless other things. Plus it doesn't have a _single_ evidence for it, and didn't make a _single_ prediction.

The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.

Even that wouldn't make you "absolutely" sure of anything - your senses can be deceived, we might be in the Matrix, or it could be Harry Potter casting a memory spell on you. But as we can have near absolute certitude that someone commited a crime even if we didn't actually witness it, and as we can have near absolute certitude that if I drop my pen it'll fall, even if I never actually dropped that pen in 2016 yet (and who knows, the laws might have changed), we can have near absolute certitude that evolution is why we have such a diverse amount of life forms on Earth.
[spoiler=OP's opinion]Creationist. Period.[/spoiler][/quote]

[Zoo Trouble]

You have been brainwashed by the round earth media that never takes into consideration any piece of evidence that flat earthers give and they only take time to examine the evidence of round earthers

You can just get a sattelite image.

You have been brainwashed by the media with their cgi images of a spherical earth. Are you calling G-d and the Bible liars?

[Kaidou]

I challenge you to look at all 8500 articles and debunk all of them here

What's that fallacy where you try to win arguments by just spewing so much crap that it's too time-consuming for your opponents to refute all of it?

"Argumentum ad Putris-Scheiss", if I remember correctly.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

"Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from"

Because harmful mutations kill off animals who get them. Meaning that good mutations (lower metabolism, thicker fur, white skin/black skin) stay in based on the environment the organism is in and therefore live on to reproduce and the mutation is spread through the offspring. You're only reading part of the story.

It's like you don't even know what Darwinism is even.

A lot of people don't otherwise Social Darwinism, and the dark path of history that followed wouldn't have even happened.

[Neutraligon]

Seems pretty damn clear to me.
If there's a one in a million chance you'll live if someone shoots you, does that mean that you have to be dead, with no exception?
Mutations like you said can be harmful, doesn't mean they all are.
The real way to be sure is to ask questions about everything, for example, If god created the Universe, why didn't he talk to everyone?
Why was only Abraham spoken too if God loved us all?
Why is there evil men and women if God loves us?
Why allow for such freedom of thought if you know the end result will be the children you love going to hell?
God seems like a poor choice, and I will always choose the path of Logic rather than the path of "Well you can't explain this!"
Creation has a load of bumpkis from their own book, and a history mostly forgotten, and if you believe that they are right because of it, than you should believe in Zeus and Ra and the like.

The real way to be sure is to ask questions about everything, for example, If god created the Universe, why didn't he talk to everyone?
Why should he?
Why was only Abraham spoken too if God loved us all?
Abraham is a chosen one
Why is there evil men and women if God loves us?
Pyschological problems and the type of enviroment they grow up in
Why allow for such freedom of thought if you know the end result will be the children you love going to hell?
Convert them then, then they won't go hellbound

Because supposedly he wants everyone to recognize him
So what he still supposedly wants everyone to recognize him, he is still doing a shitty job
Does not answer the question
Doesn't deal with the fact that many will not convert so does not answer the question.

Oh and still waiting

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of matter, like the germ theory has nothing to do with the origin of matter, thus I fail to see why it is a weakness. Second, Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is the single most well supported theory in science. Third the key word is most (although I am not sure this is the case source please), most is not all, some are neutral and some are beneficial. Since most is not all this is not an issue for evolution if true.

Creation on the other hand is not even an hypothesis since there is no way to test creationism, unlike evolution (you are wrong about the time machine thing, we can see evolution simply by looking at antibiotic resistant diseases).

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

You can just reconcile the two theories together like the Catholic Church did.

You can. Why should we?

Well for one they didn't just reconcile the two views because that is a simplification of what actually happened.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

You can just get a sattelite image.

You have been brainwashed by the media with their cgi images of a spherical earth. Are you calling G-d and the Bible liars?

Hmm that isn't how brainwashing entirely works, but I doubt you are serious enough anyway.

So do you doubt the U.S actually conducted the moon landing too?

[Neutraligon]

You have been brainwashed by the media with their cgi images of a spherical earth. Are you calling G-d and the Bible liars?

Hmm that isn't how brainwashing entirely works, but I doubt you are serious enough anyway.

So do you doubt the U.S actually conducted the moon landing too?

It was all a media and government hoax. All the video, photos, stuff we got from the moon, etc is all fake, because reasons.

[Empire of Donner land]

You have been brainwashed by the media with their cgi images of a spherical earth. Are you calling G-d and the Bible liars?

Hmm that isn't how brainwashing entirely works, but I doubt you are serious enough anyway.

So do you doubt the U.S actually conducted the moon landing too?

Stanley Kubrick is a hell of a director.

[Korhal IVV]

You can just get a sattelite image.

You have been brainwashed by the media with their cgi images of a spherical earth. Are you calling G-d and the Bible liars?

The Bible doesn't say that the Earth is flat

[Empire of Donner land]

You have been brainwashed by the media with their cgi images of a spherical earth. Are you calling G-d and the Bible liars?

The Bible doesn't say that the Earth is flat

Okay. Where does it say it is round?

[Neutraligon]

You have been brainwashed by the media with their cgi images of a spherical earth. Are you calling G-d and the Bible liars?

The Bible doesn't say that the Earth is flat

Well that depends see the Hebrew uses the term for circle not sphere (or ball). A circle is flat. It described it as having corners, and of a tent being spread over it (a tent is spread over a flat surface). So it probably does say it was flat.

I am going to keep asking for a response.

[The Alexanderians]

Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific. A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted. And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:

Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from

Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.

The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.

[spoiler=OP's opinion]Creationist. Period.[/spoiler]

WHY WOULD YOU START THIS DISCUSSION HERE?

[Kalaron]

Seems pretty damn clear to me.
If there's a one in a million chance you'll live if someone shoots you, does that mean that you have to be dead, with no exception?
Mutations like you said can be harmful, doesn't mean they all are.
The real way to be sure is to ask questions about everything, for example, If god created the Universe, why didn't he talk to everyone?
Why was only Abraham spoken too if God loved us all?
Why is there evil men and women if God loves us?
Why allow for such freedom of thought if you know the end result will be the children you love going to hell?
God seems like a poor choice, and I will always choose the path of Logic rather than the path of "Well you can't explain this!"
Creation has a load of bumpkis from their own book, and a history mostly forgotten, and if you believe that they are right because of it, than you should believe in Zeus and Ra and the like.

The real way to be sure is to ask questions about everything, for example, If god created the Universe, why didn't he talk to everyone?
Why should he?
He's all powerful, and omnipotent, a little heads up is nice when trying to keep kids out of hell.
Why was only Abraham spoken too if God loved us all?
Abraham is a chosen one
...Why? No one else reported that stuff until it was popular, so why the one guy? Chosen or not....well, like I said earlier, Omnipotent.
Why is there evil men and women if God loves us?
Pyschological problems and the type of enviroment they grow up in
So this god who knows all just lets them walk over and take a massive Shite on the rest of us?
And he can't even be bothered with talking them down?
Well then, good thing I don't worship his lazy arse.
Why allow for such freedom of thought if you know the end result will be the children you love going to hell?
Convert them then, then they won't go hellbound

Ooooorrrrrr, talk to them (Or give a sign that he exists that is different than say...any other religion) so that they know he actually exists.
Asking people to ignore some war-crime level statements in your sponsored holy book is taking the "Blind Belief" bit a stretch far.

[Neutraligon]

The real way to be sure is to ask questions about everything, for example, If god created the Universe, why didn't he talk to everyone?
Why should he?
He's all powerful, and omnipotent, a little heads up is nice when trying to keep kids out of hell.
Why was only Abraham spoken too if God loved us all?
Abraham is a chosen one
...Why? No one else reported that stuff until it was popular, so why the one guy? Chosen or not....well, like I said earlier, Omnipotent.
Why is there evil men and women if God loves us?
Pyschological problems and the type of enviroment they grow up in
So this god who knows all just lets them walk over and take a massive Shite on the rest of us?
And he can't even be bothered with talking them down?
Well then, good thing I don't worship his lazy arse.
Why allow for such freedom of thought if you know the end result will be the children you love going to hell?
Convert them then, then they won't go hellbound

Ooooorrrrrr, talk to them (Or give a sign that he exists that is different than say...any other religion) so that they know he actually exists.
Asking people to ignore some war-crime level statements in your sponsored holy book is taking the "Blind Belief" bit a stretch far.

I always thought the bible was a list of God's failures (assuming that god exists). The old testament and the creation story in particular are pretty big examples of this.