On Creationism and Evolution.

[Asherahan]

If I ever became a theist I would believe in my god which I created.

Know why?

Because my god says evolution is true.

[The Rich Port]

If I ever became a theist I would believe in my god which I created.

Know why?

Because my god says evolution is true.

INFIDEL.

THOU KNOW THY GOD OF ATHEISTS.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.



KNEEL BEFORE THE LIVING PROOF OF EVOLUTION.

[Neutraligon]

If I ever became a theist I would believe in my god which I created.

Know why?

Because my god says evolution is true.

INFIDEL.

THOU KNOW THY GOD OF ATHEISTS.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.



KNEEL BEFORE THE LIVING PROOF OF EVOLUTION.

I am touched by those noodly appendages.

[The Grey Wolf]

At this point, there's no doubt that evolution is the best possible answer for life, and that creationism is essentially religion parading itself as a science.

[Godular]

INFIDEL.

THOU KNOW THY GOD OF ATHEISTS.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.



KNEEL BEFORE THE LIVING PROOF OF EVOLUTION.

I am touched by those noodly appendages.

Ramen, brother.

[Godular]

Ah, the old "I'm just asking questions" defense. Can't beat the classics.

Well, we all cant be megalomaniacal fundamentalists.

It is one thing to ask questions, another to find answers. Asking 'What evidence is there for evolution' in particular completely disregards the fact that this information has been posted before in this thread and others, this information can be found online in approximately five seconds (and I don't speak of youtube videos, I mean actual reputable sources), and is a common creationist tactic that essentially produces a strawman that backfires every damn time.

Too bad this forum didnt exist for those poor sods several thousand years ago who lacked all perspective, through no fault of their own, to consider the phenomenon. Its one thing to allow that to color how you view their philosophy, and it would be humane to pity those who insist on being fundamental versus philosophical about such works. But no screw it, lets just be arrogant pricks and make fun of them without regard for context.

The context in this situation being that the information is readily fucking available for all to see and seek out and that asking for said information under these circumstances is little more than a display of complete disregard for the content of previous threads on the same damn subject in which the poster in question has participated in and utilized similar arguments.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I kick the ivory tower out from under your feet?

[General Karl Von Hoffmann]

god created us through evolution and the big bang

[Lost heros]

god created us through evolution and the big bang

Your god sounds like a mainstream person tacking himself onto whatever is popular.

[Immoren]

god created us through evolution and the big bang

Your god sounds like a mainstream person tacking himself onto whatever is popular.

These modern gods are such plebeian bandwagoneers.

[Differing Opinions]

Evolution is a fact. Creationism is a myth trying to explain the facts.

Yup.
But the conflict bwtween science and religion isnt really about literally comparisons of the scientific veracity of biology or physics texts with a Koran, Torah, or Holy Bible. A rather dishonest excercise as the latter dont make scientific claims. The fault of those who make such claims on their behalf is that of the people, not the books.
No, the conflict is with the fundamental adherents of either being incapable of being philosophical about their respective fields. Never mind that there are scientific theologians, and theological scientists who get on just fine with the work at hand. The spotlight tends to fall on those uncompromising individuals who insist on each others illegitimacy in no uncertain terms.

[Arkinesia]

The notion that evolution contradicts religion is utter bunk,

Can you name a creation myth that describes the gradual changes in a species through generations eventually creating a new species altogether?

No?

Then evolution contradicts religion.

Even an antitheist will tell you that one does not need to lose their religion to accept science.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Can you name a creation myth that describes the gradual changes in a species through generations eventually creating a new species altogether?

No?

Then evolution contradicts religion.

Even an antitheist will tell you that one does not need to lose their religion to accept science.

When did I ever say you needed to lose religion belle accepting science?

I just said evolution contradicts religion.

[Tamsien]

Even an antitheist will tell you that one does not need to lose their religion to accept science.

When did I ever say you needed to lose religion belle accepting science?

I just said evolution contradicts religion.

>tfw evolution contradicts religion

Dogmatic religions such as the Abrahamic faiths, sure, evolution contradicts them big time. Although specifically contradicts creation myths (Especially literal interpretations, and by extension dogmatic, of them) of as a whole, not religion or religions.

Some, like Buddhism, simply 'do not care' or lack a dogma to begin with. Not to mention it would the 'right speech' and 'right thought' as evolution is backed by evidence so a Buddhist would usually say, 'yeah, evolution is a proven scientific theory.'

But that aside, aim a teeny tiny bit more precisely there, friend.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

When did I ever say you needed to lose religion belle accepting science?

I just said evolution contradicts religion.

>tfw evolution contradicts religion

Dogmatic religions such as the Abrahamic faiths, sure, evolution contradicts them big time. Although specifically contradicts creation myths (Especially literal interpretations, and by extension dogmatic, of them) of as a whole, not religion or religions.

If you said something and I said something contradicting to that, then I am contradicting you.

Thus, it's true to say evolution contradicts religion.

Some, like Buddhism, simply 'do not care' or lack a dogma to begin with. Not to mention it would the 'right speech' and 'right thought' as evolution is backed by evidence so a Buddhist would usually say, 'yeah, evolution is a proven scientific theory.'

But that aside, aim a teeny tiny bit more precisely there, friend.

Buddhism doesn't have a creation myth in the first place, so it doesn't apply.

[Tamsien]

>tfw evolution contradicts religion

Dogmatic religions such as the Abrahamic faiths, sure, evolution contradicts them big time. Although specifically contradicts creation myths (Especially literal interpretations, and by extension dogmatic, of them) of as a whole, not religion or religions.

If you said something and I said something contradicting to that, then I am contradicting you.

Thus, it's true to say evolution contradicts religion.

Some, like Buddhism, simply 'do not care' or lack a dogma to begin with. Not to mention it would the 'right speech' and 'right thought' as evolution is backed by evidence so a Buddhist would usually say, 'yeah, evolution is a proven scientific theory.'

But that aside, aim a teeny tiny bit more precisely there, friend.

Buddhism doesn't have a creation myth in the first place, so it doesn't apply.

... I honestly did not see that. Well then. Carry on. Pretend that... never happened.

[Salandriagado]

Yes... Thanks. I often miss my own points...

I don't think evolution should be taken on faith. It should be taken on the evidence available for it, of which there is plenty, which is what has allowed evolutionary scientists to form the cohesive theory of evolution, which has been predictive of biological functions and has allowed us glimpses at what life in years before was actually like.

Nor should theological views of the universe... I find most theological views are not at all cohesive, nor are they predictive. The chain of evidence for God, IMO, has far, far more holes in it than evolution, and theology has been proven to NOT be predictive in many instances.

It's very frustrating, therefore, to someone like me, who does not take things on faith, to have people be so gullible and trusting of things that we couldn't even begin to comprehend, let alone to fully understand and cite as "fact".

It may seem obvious to some people, but... It just isn't.

what evidence is their for this theory?

(NB: I seem to have lost my link to the massive evidence-list post: if anyone else has it, let me know)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa_pre_2011/evolution/evolutionrev3.shtml
http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=14

Evolution is a fact. Creationism is a myth trying to explain the facts.

if it was a fact it wouldnt be called a theory

"Theory" is the highest accolade that science can give to an explanation of observed facts. There is a fact of evolution: stuff evolves over time. There is also a theory of evolution, which explains the mechanics (natural selection, genetics, mutations, et al.) that cause this to happen.

[Korhal IVV]

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

[Zoice]

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Anyone who says that understands neither evolution nor the second law of thermodynamics.

[The Repentant Schutzstaffel]

Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Anyone who says that understands neither evolution nor the second law of thermodynamics.

Evolution says that everything is getting better and better while the second law says that everything is wearing down. lol

*trolls more people in the bunker with antics*

[Wallenburg]

Anyone who says that understands neither evolution nor the second law of thermodynamics.

Evolution says that everything is getting better and better while the second law says that everything is wearing down. lol

*trolls more people in the bunker with antics*

Evolution is biology. Thermodynamics is chemistry.

[Zoice]

Anyone who says that understands neither evolution nor the second law of thermodynamics.

Evolution says that everything is getting better and better while the second law says that everything is deteorating. lol

That's a terrible over simplification, and there's so much wrong with it. Themodynamic order isn't the same as "logical/intuitive order", and that's not even mentioning that the Earth isn't a closed system, nor are the organisms evolving on it. It's interesting and telling that it's only non-physicists that think the physics concept disproves evolution.

[The Rich Port]

Anyone who says that understands neither evolution nor the second law of thermodynamics.

Evolution says that everything is getting better and better while the second law says that everything is wearing down. lol

*trolls more people in the bunker with antics*

... Was that supposed to be funny?

... Because it wasn't.

Stop trying to be funny.

I've heard ISIL slave traders make funnier jokes.

[The Repentant Schutzstaffel]

I just post for the lols

[Wallenburg]

I just post for the lols

LOLs is best reason. Work on humor, comrade.

[The Rich Port]

I just post for the lols

You have about as many lols as Rand Paul had delegates at the RNC.