there is NO evidence AGAINST Evolution...

[Parsimony]

Your never going to agree no matter how much I try to persuade you but I can only ask to do me one favour. Go to youtube and watch a video of zakir naik vs an atheist.... you probably wont but I had try
im sorry for calling you little minded. I have anger issues(sorry). Goodbye it was a fun debate. GOD is real nothjng can create itself the universe cant create itself from nothkng either.

I'm not denying that God exists. Evolution is a separate topic from theology.

 

[The Joker]

Iv only looked a little into evolution yes iv accepted but can you acept that theres someone that can prove you wrong your using the seeing is beleivin theory to determine that God doesnt exist
(By the way I love onepunch man )

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Iv only looked a little into evolution yes iv accepted but can you acept that theres someone that can prove you wrong your using the seeing is beleivin theory to determine that God doesnt exist
(By the way I love onepunch man )

I'm not really sure what you mean. When have I ever said that God doesn't exist and what does that have to do with the things you've said about evolution?

If you only looked into evolution "a little", what made you think you were educated enough that you come here and refute it? I'm not attacking you - I respect you a great deal for your honesty - but I'm very curious as to your reasoning.

 

[The Joker]

Initially I thought I had all the knowledge neccessary I didnt I had to go into it properly to understand

sorry for misinterpreting what you said evolution is seprate from theology.

 

[Parsimony]

Iv only looked a little into evolution yes iv accepted but can you acept that theres someone that can prove you wrong

Yes, evolution is a falsifiable theory. There are quite a few things I can think of that would present problems for it if discovered. However, they have not been (so far, anyway).

your using the seeing is beleivin theory to determine that God doesnt exist

When did I ever say that God didn't exist?

(By the way I love onepunch man )

Nice.

Initially I thought I had all the knowledge neccessary I didnt I had to go into it properly to understand

I'd be willing to teach you some stuff about it if you wish. Send me a personal message with any questions you might have and I'll see what I can do.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Initially I thought I had all the knowledge neccessary I didnt I had to go into it properly to understand

sorry for misinterpreting what you said evolution is seprate from theology.

That's all good, and I thank you for your refreshing honesty. But you really don't need to run off anywhere. I invite you to check out some of the forums here and feel free to ask questions of any of us about the subject of evolution in hopes of understanding it a little better. I don't want to try to "convert" you or anything - which side of the evolution vs. creationism divide you wish to stand on is entirely your decision - but either way I think it would be helpful and enlightening for you to learn more about evolution, even if that just means coming up with more accurate arguments against it.

 

[The Joker]

I'm not really sure what you mean. When have I ever said that God doesn't exist and what does that have to do with the things you've said about evolution

I never said you didnt I just said God exists I might have implyed it but thats not what I ment

 

[The Joker]

Yes, evolution is a falsifiable theory. There are quite a few things I can think of that would present problems for it if discovered. However, they have not been (so far, anyway).


When did I ever say that God didn't exist?


Nice.


I'd be willing to teach you some stuff about it if you wish. Send me a personal message with any questions you might have and I'll see what I can do.

Thanks man ill hit u up if iv got any questions

 

[McBell]

Your never going to agree no matter how much I try to persuade you but I can only ask to do me one favour. Go to youtube and watch a video of zakir naik vs an atheist.... you probably wont but I had try
im sorry for calling you little minded. I have anger issues(sorry). Goodbye it was a fun debate. GOD is real nothjng can create itself the universe cant create itself from nothkng either.

Um...
When are you going to start "debating"?

You do know that zakir naik is a snake oil salesman, right?

 

[McBell]

Iv only looked a little into evolution

And it shows...

yes iv accepted but can you acept that theres someone that can prove you wrong

I accept that I can be shown to be in error.

Can you?

your using the seeing is beleivin theory to determine that God doesnt exist
(By the way I love onepunch man )

Nope.
I am using the the fact that there is absolutely zero objective empirical evidence in support of any deity.
let alone your favorite deity.

 

[ScuzManiac]

Um...
When are you going to start "debating"?

You do know that zakir naik is a snake oil salesman, right?

Isn't he the same guy that didn't even know the name of the island (Galapagos) that Charles Darwin visited?

And the same guy that said Galileo was sentenced to death even though he wasn't? And the same guy that said Neanderthals went extinct 140,000 years ago?

Yeah...

 

[Ouroboros]

So what your trying to say is that the organism on earth continue to evolve then your accepting the fact that a new race of people or even a new species could evolve out of the ones we have currently on earth and also if you beleive that evolution happened and continues to happen then why havnt extinct organisms which did not die due to their inability to adapt in the new environment, evovled back onto the earth except your saying that it took millions of years for them to evolve and it will take the same time then you accepting that we would see them again in the future.

That's a run-on sentence if any.

What do you think the different hominid species we've found are? Homo erectus was a different species of humans (hence the word "Homo" which means "human"). It walked upright and had tools, but had features that were both human-like and ape-like.

Evolution can go fast or slow, depending on complexity of the organism that's evolving. It can take millions of years in some cases, like humans, or take just days or weeks when it comes to bacteria or yeast.

The theory of creation makes more sense because everytgjng needs to be done by someone. Without a driver a car wont drive itself. Without a building team a house wont make itself. So the fact that a superior being created us on earth is not that hard to belive when your ready to a look at it from a diffrent persepective.i agree that at the time of creation humans were rather diffrent because the world changes everyday and humans have been made with the ability to adapt to our environment.

So who made God? If everything needs to be done by "someone" then God must've been made by someone as well.

Before you figure out why God is your favorite exception without explanation, perhaps you can come up with an answer why God created an immune system in our bodies to fight of bacteria and virus through adaptations, but not toxins or heavy metals, and why God created this before the fall of humans and before sickness even existed. It means that God planned virus and bacteria to evolve, and that God planned our immune system to evolve as well. So how do you explain that if evolution isn't true?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

The theory of creation makes more sense because everytgjng needs to be done by someone. Without a driver a car wont drive itself.

No one is driving the Earth around the Sun, or the Sun through the Galaxy.

Without a building team a house wont make itself. So the fact that a superior being created us on earth is not that hard to belive when your ready to a look at it from a diffrent persepective.

Most of the things in nature were not made by humans or any animal.

If you compare the things we know for sure were made by a conscious entity(things ranging from bird-nests to human technology), it's greatly out-numbered by the things we have no evidence of a creator for.

The earth, the solar system, snow flakes etc...

So if you take away technology, what other analogy do you have to say that everything comes from a creator? You can't. You can't discribe or demonstrate what a creatorless universe ought to be like to compare to this one. We have only one example of a universe, and it's this one.

You have no say in the matter that this Universe has a creator, unless you have other universes that you know for sure is creatorless, to compare this one to.

 

[John Martin]

It is my opinion that we need to accept the scientific of evolution. For me evolution which began with the big bang is not the work of God directly. God did not start the big bang.
The big bang is started by the human soul which is the reflection of the spark of God in the primordial matter.This soul is the child of the reflection of the spark and the primordial matter. The birth of this soul is like conception. With the conception starts the inflation. The soul has the unconscious desire to discover its source the divine spark and ultimately realize its oneness with God. since it is in a state of ignorance it projects its object outside and thus begins time and space.
This evolutionary process has two purposes: ultimate and immediate. The ultimate purpose is to realize the oneness of human consciousness with the divine consciousness. The immediate goal is to produce a body and mind that is capable of self-consciousness which facilitates the union with divine. Just as NASA produces many instruments in order to send people to Moon and so on, so also the soul prepares that instruments that can take it to its ultimate destiny. Religions are one of those instruments that the soul produces and finally it transcends them. Evolution is like the prodigal son who comes away from the father and returns to the father. Hence we can say evolution is only an indirect work of God,because the spark of God involved in it. The creation that comes from God is subtle energy that does not go through a process of evolution. Its nature is to unfold eternity. it is not conditioned by time and space.

 

[029b10]

NO EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION

No evidence for it either.

Roll a set of dice, like the procreation process, the numbers of each dice will form a new number. However, the new number from the two dice is not random, it is a quantifiable variable of the two dice, yet the new number will be between 2-12.

So therefore, how can the theory of Evolution be a principled discipline if it itself is based upon a set of random occurrences such randomness would exclude it from being definable.

However, the theology of Creation is not much better since it holds that an eternal God made Adam and Eve after 'their' image and 'their' likeness.

But despite the two vastly differing concepts, the Evolutionist and Creationist do have one thing in common, both have no trouble lying to defend their truth.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

No evidence for it either.

Roll a set of dice, like the procreation process, the numbers of each dice will form a new number. However, the new number from the two dice is not random, it is a quantifiable variable of the two dice, yet the new number will be between 2-12.

So therefore, how can the theory of Evolution be a principled discipline if it itself is based upon a set of random occurrences such randomness would exclude it from being definable.

However, the theology of Creation is not much better since it holds that an eternal God made Adam and Eve after 'their' image and 'their' likeness.

But despite the two vastly differing concepts, the Evolutionist and Creationist do have one thing in common, both have no trouble lying to defend their truth.

Take ten thousand of your dice. Roll them all at random, 6 is good, a one is poor..
Now the part you're forgetting, is it's evolution by natural selection.
Take all the sixes you rolled and set them aside. They are most likely to be carried to the next generation, as they are positive attributes.
Take the rest of the dice. Roll them, pull out and keep all the sixes, natural selection.
Eventually get to all or almost all sixes, be amazed, then realize evolution does not equal "random" . Evolution by natural selection...

 

[Ouroboros]

No evidence for it either.

Not true. There's a huge amount of evidence for it. The reason why it is a science is because of the evidence. The evidence points to evolution. The theory is to explain why it is happening.

Roll a set of dice, like the procreation process, the numbers of each dice will form a new number. However, the new number from the two dice is not random, it is a quantifiable variable of the two dice, yet the new number will be between 2-12.

Have you ever played Yatzee!? That's a game of chance and selection. For some reason, someone always wins in that game, however you play it.

Besides, the same principle, using randomness and selection, has been used to produce products or control systems. The first successful one was to control oil pipe lines in the 80's. Regular algorithms couldn't solve it, but a genetic algorithm could adapt and control the flow just fine. There are even companies now using genetic (or evolutionary) algorithms for market predictions.

So therefore, how can the theory of Evolution be a principled discipline if it itself is based upon a set of random occurrences such randomness would exclude it from being definable.

It's both random and selective. The selection process is based on environment and other properties and situations in nature which causes there to be a filtering of the randomness. The ordering factor is selective pressure.

However, the theology of Creation is not much better since it holds that an eternal God made Adam and Eve after 'their' image and 'their' likeness.

And out of dirt. An image of God made of dust from the ground. It doesn't explain why we have more than 70% water in our body.

But despite the two vastly differing concepts, the Evolutionist and Creationist do have one thing in common, both have no trouble lying to defend their truth.

The only problem an evolutionist is having is to make creationists to actually take an honest look at the evidence.

 

[Sapiens]

Take ten thousand of your dice. Roll them all at random, 6 is good, a one is poor..
Now the part you're forgetting, is it's evolution by natural selection.
Take all the sixes you rolled and set them aside. They are most likely to be carried to the next generation, as they are positive attributes.
Take the rest of the dice. Roll them, pull out and keep all the sixes, natural selection.
Eventually get to all or almost all sixes, be amazed, then realize evolution does not equal "random" . Evolution by natural selection...

You're on the right track, what you left out is that each six you throw is not taken out of the trials, it is rolled and then replace by the number just thrown of dies each with an additional face that shows a six. pretty soon all dies and all die faces will be sixes.

It is not really random. it is driven hard toward sixes.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

You're on the right track, what you left out is that each six you throw is not taken out of the trials, it is replace by two or more die with an additional face that show a six. pretty soon all dies and all die faces will be sixes.

Baby steps, my friend.. baby steps.

 

[idav]

The only problem an evolutionist is having is to make creationists to actually take an honest look at the evidence.

Yeah tell them to quit covering their eyes.