Evolution or God, which requires more skepticism to deny?

I know. I'm saying when Creationist talk about evolution, they are not just talking about micro and macro... They are also talking about

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Abiogenisis aka Organic Evolution

and all other forms of evolution. Whereas evolutionist tend to only focus on micro and macroevolution because they have no evidence for any of the other forms. And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

If by mature you mean absolutely and totally wrong, then yes, indeed. As I pointed our earlier, microevolution necessitates macroevolution and vice versa. By accepting microevolution, you must accept macroevolution.

Simple. God is in the details. I look at all the wonderful and amazing beautiful animals in nature and I just wonder at its incredible design. I doubted if God existed once too, I admit that. But whenever I see a bird flying through the air or a spider weave its web, or ants living as one organism without a leader to guide them, or the eyes of a bald eagle looking straight at me in those National Geographic pictures, I just sit speechless to how amazing they are designed.

That's why I'm convinced that someone, a Creator, must've designed these animals and insects. I just can't believe it came about by chance. There's too much design. It's too beautiful. It's to impossible for me to comprehed how these animals and insects existed out of nothingness.

Same thing with my little niece or my nephews. Human reproduction is to difficult to understand. Science may explain how it takes place but yet we still marvel everytime it happens, saying "it's the miracle of life."

That's why I know that there's a Creator. And it's not just the animals or nature, but the mountains, oceans, galaxies, stars, the sun, etc. Even the plants and trees. Like the avacado how it's full of oil and nutrients whereas the pomegranate has thousands of little fruit like seeds inside its shell. It's too beautifully designed. How can I convince myself that it all happened by chance or came about out of nothingness? There's got to be a higher purpose to it.

I'm not forcing or trying to convince anyone to believe in God. I'm just challenging those who say that there is no Creator. That's all.

Fair enough sir and everyones beliefs are sacred to them (my belief) but you probably guessed im an agnostic that leans more towards atheism! And the world we live in is truly beautiful and at this point i would quote Douglas Adam:

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too" That pretty much sums it up for me.

I know. I'm saying when Creationist talk about evolution, they are not just talking about micro and macro... They are also talking about

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Abiogenisis aka Organic Evolution

and all other forms of evolution. Whereas evolutionist tend to only focus on micro and macroevolution because they have no evidence for any of the other forms. And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

You're making things up now. When both sides refer to "evolution", we're talking solely about biological evolution.

I personally believe that there must be some form of superior being or beings that had a hand in creation. I don't however that if they do exist that they are omnipotent as religion says God (or Gods) to be. If God was why would he have let mankind discover methods of killing each other, why would disease exist, why would anything bad happen.

No, I like to think that Earth was, maybe, an experiment gone wrong. This is probably complete BS but I like my delusions.

I know. I'm saying when Creationist talk about evolution, they are not just talking about micro and macro... They are also talking about

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Abiogenisis aka Organic Evolution

and all other forms of evolution. Whereas evolutionist tend to only focus on micro and macroevolution because they have no evidence for any of the other forms. And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"]Simple. God is in the details. I look at all the wonderful and amazing beautiful animals in nature and I just wonder at its incredible design. I doubted if God existed once too, I admit that. But whenever I see a bird flying through the air or a spider weave its web, or ants living as one organism without a leader to guide them, or the eyes of a bald eagle looking straight at me in those National Geographic pictures, I just sit speechless to how amazing they are designed.luke1889

The theories of abiogenesis and evolution can give you the answers to that also.

It also presents more questions.

Since it's a limited field of research and difficult to study, even though it impacted biology, they're mostly hypothesis NOT fact or truth.

Some people say abiogenesis is impossible. I'm speaking neutrally here and not from a creationist point of view.

Just a thought.

I guess that's fair enough. Just so you know...evolution is considered scientific fact by the scientific community and if you're not part of that, of course you'll disagree.

Abiogenesis is a little less concrete but it's the best we've got given the evidence and until something contradictory comes along. And we'll certainly keep on searching.

The thing with science is it never claims to have devine truth. All it does is reach educated conclusions based on evidence and observation. When all scientists do it look at what is before them, I struggle to see how you can refuse it so violently.

Not really violently, but a little irritated when people blatantly deny the existence of God and claim evolution as truth. I know belief is a individual choice, so I never force people to believe in God because I understand it's their choice. All I'm trying to do, like I said before, is to challenge people who don't believe in God to see the possibilities.

Just because evolution is considered fact by the scientific community doesn't discount the existence of God or creation. That's all I'm trying to present here. Also, the scientific community can be misleading because there are many scientists who believe in creation or both. I once had a professor who said that he believes God created the universe, but the Bible doesn't mention "how" he did it. I also know well-known biologists who were once evolutionists that became Creationists who go around speaking to many people around the world challenging the theories or evolution.

So it goes both ways and it's always challenged. That's why I personally don't accept what the community says. They're not the truth or the law. Ultimately, the choice is individual of course. And maybe I'm being narrowminded to my views but like I said, I just wanted to challenge others with my posts.

I personally believe that there must be some form of superior being or beings that had a hand in creation. I don't however that if they do exist that they are omnipotent as religion says God (or Gods) to be. If God was why would he have let mankind discover methods of killing each other, why would disease exist, why would anything bad happen.

No, I like to think that Earth was, maybe, an experiment gone wrong. This is probably complete BS but I like my delusions.

The_One_White

You speak for a lot of people there.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

I know. I'm saying when Creationist talk about evolution, they are not just talking about micro and macro... They are also talking about

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Abiogenisis aka Organic Evolution

and all other forms of evolution. Whereas evolutionist tend to only focus on micro and macroevolution because they have no evidence for any of the other forms. And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Mr_sprinkles

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

I know. I'm saying when Creationist talk about evolution, they are not just talking about micro and macro... They are also talking about

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Abiogenisis aka Organic Evolution

and all other forms of evolution. Whereas evolutionist tend to only focus on micro and macroevolution because they have no evidence for any of the other forms. And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

Why? We can get evidence from sources other than observation.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Funky_Llama

If by mature you mean absolutely and totally wrong, then yes, indeed. As I pointed our earlier, microevolution necessitates macroevolution and vice versa. By accepting microevolution, you must accept macroevolution.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

If by mature you mean absolutely and totally wrong, then yes, indeed. As I pointed our earlier, microevolution necessitates macroevolution and vice versa. By accepting microevolution, you must accept macroevolution.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

I know. I'm saying when Creationist talk about evolution, they are not just talking about micro and macro... They are also talking about

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Abiogenisis aka Organic Evolution

and all other forms of evolution. Whereas evolutionist tend to only focus on micro and macroevolution because they have no evidence for any of the other forms. And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Funky_Llama

Why? We can get evidence from sources other than observation.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

I know. I'm saying when Creationist talk about evolution, they are not just talking about micro and macro... They are also talking about

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Abiogenisis aka Organic Evolution

and all other forms of evolution. Whereas evolutionist tend to only focus on micro and macroevolution because they have no evidence for any of the other forms. And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

Why? We can get evidence from sources other than observation.

Heh... I think reliable sources are preferable. ;)

[Not really violently, but a little irritated when people blatantly deny the existence of God and claim evolution as truth. I know belief is a individual choice, so I never force people to believe in God because I understand it's their choice. All I'm trying to do, like I said before, is to challenge people who don't believe in God to see the possibilities.

Just because evolution is considered fact by the scientific community doesn't discount the existence of God or creation. That's all I'm trying to present here. Also, the scientific community can be misleading because there are many scientists who believe in creation or both. I once had a professor who said that he believes God created the universe, but the Bible doesn't mention "how" he did it. I also know well-known biologists who were once evolutionists that became Creationists who go around speaking to many people around the world challenging the theories or evolution.

So it goes both ways and it's always challenged. That's why I personally don't accept what the community says. They're not the truth or the law. Ultimately, the choice is individual of course. And maybe I'm being narrowminded to my views but like I said, I just wanted to challenge others with my posts.

ASK_Story

I take your point and I'm glad you're being sensible about this.

I will admit that I am one of those people who denies God and claims evolution as truth. However, I, like most similar minded people, have good reason for that. Logical reason too.

Firstly, I have a scientific mind. I like proof. And not just any old proof, but concrete proof which reaches the standard within the scientific community to be considered as proof. On the shoulders of proof stands a burden. The...burden of proof. If you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt for a claim - or hypothesis - to be true, there is no proof and the said hypothesis does not stand.

Now you might say..."but you are claiming that God doesn't exist and you have no proof" but when it comes to the supernatural, a field is which science does not operate anyway, negative claims are not possible to substantiate in such a manner. Thus, we are only left with the positive counter-claim: "God does exist".

And so we put that to the test. But alas, the "proof" forwarded for not only the Christian god, but also every other god ever to have been purported - falls short of the burden of proof. It is - quite simply - not unequivocal evidence. At all. Within each religion, you have different groups of people each with their own interpretation as to what X,Y and Z is supposed to mean. This in itself shows that even the followers have no true ideal as to what it all means.

And so, in classic scientific style, if a claim cannot be verified, it is assumed not to be true. And hence why, I do not believe in your god, or any other for that matter.

I hope you can see the thought processes throughout my reasoning and if you're wondering about "faith"...I just don't do that at all.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

If by mature you mean absolutely and totally wrong, then yes, indeed. As I pointed our earlier, microevolution necessitates macroevolution and vice versa. By accepting microevolution, you must accept macroevolution.

If one happens, the other does. What don't you get about this?

Microevolution over a long time is the same as macroevolution. Thus, macroevolution must happen if microevolution happens.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

I know. I'm saying when Creationist talk about evolution, they are not just talking about micro and macro... They are also talking about

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Abiogenisis aka Organic Evolution

and all other forms of evolution. Whereas evolutionist tend to only focus on micro and macroevolution because they have no evidence for any of the other forms. And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Funky_Llama

If by mature you mean absolutely and totally wrong, then yes, indeed. As I pointed our earlier, microevolution necessitates macroevolution and vice versa. By accepting microevolution, you must accept macroevolution.

If one happens, the other does. What don't you get about this?

Microevolution over a long time is the same as macroevolution. Thus, macroevolution must happen if microevolution happens.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

If by mature you mean absolutely and totally wrong, then yes, indeed. As I pointed our earlier, microevolution necessitates macroevolution and vice versa. By accepting microevolution, you must accept macroevolution.

If one happens, the other does. What don't you get about this?

Microevolution over a long time is the same as macroevolution. Thus, macroevolution must happen if microevolution happens.

Yes it has. Let me put it like this: what do you think when a species microevolves for a few millions of years? How is that different from macroevolving from a few millions of years?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

If by mature you mean absolutely and totally wrong, then yes, indeed. As I pointed our earlier, microevolution necessitates macroevolution and vice versa. By accepting microevolution, you must accept macroevolution.

If one happens, the other does. What don't you get about this?

Microevolution over a long time is the same as macroevolution. Thus, macroevolution must happen if microevolution happens.

Yes it has. Let me put it like this: what do you think when a species microevolves for a few millions of years? How is that different from macroevolving from a few millions of years?

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

I know. I'm saying when Creationist talk about evolution, they are not just talking about micro and macro... They are also talking about

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Abiogenisis aka Organic Evolution

and all other forms of evolution. Whereas evolutionist tend to only focus on micro and macroevolution because they have no evidence for any of the other forms. And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Mr_sprinkles

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Funky_Llama

If by mature you mean absolutely and totally wrong, then yes, indeed. As I pointed our earlier, microevolution necessitates macroevolution and vice versa. By accepting microevolution, you must accept macroevolution.

If one happens, the other does. What don't you get about this?

Microevolution over a long time is the same as macroevolution. Thus, macroevolution must happen if microevolution happens.

Yes it has. Let me put it like this: what do you think when a species microevolves for a few millions of years? How is that different from macroevolving from a few millions of years?

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]Evolution is observed. the big bang is observed, if not directly. It's effects can be directly observed, All of science comes from direct observation, even if you cannot directly observe the conclusions.

Silenthps

And you say we take things out of context. :lol:

Read the new few words, next time.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

If by mature you mean absolutely and totally wrong, then yes, indeed. As I pointed our earlier, microevolution necessitates macroevolution and vice versa. By accepting microevolution, you must accept macroevolution.

If one happens, the other does. What don't you get about this?

Microevolution over a long time is the same as macroevolution. Thus, macroevolution must happen if microevolution happens.

Yes it has. Let me put it like this: what do you think when a species microevolves for a few millions of years? How is that different from macroevolving from a few millions of years?

If they microevolve for a few million years, they'll still be the same species just with small variations. This is of course, assuming that the earth is billions of years old. Silenthps

Small genetic variations can have huge impacts on the appearance and capabilities of a species. You clearly do not understand genetics or evolution.

If they microevolve for a few million years, they'll still be the same species just with small variations. This is of course, assuming that the earth is billions of years old. Silenthps

Wrong. ;) The variations are only minor over a short amount of time. Over a long amount of time, the changes, or course, get bigger.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

I know. I'm saying when Creationist talk about evolution, they are not just talking about micro and macro... They are also talking about

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Abiogenisis aka Organic Evolution

and all other forms of evolution. Whereas evolutionist tend to only focus on micro and macroevolution because they have no evidence for any of the other forms. And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

You're getting your idea of proofs wrong. Scientifically proving something is different to logically proving something.

No matter how many times you drop a ball and watch it hit the floor, you cannot say it is logically proven that on your billionth test drop, it will fall to the ground. It's only inductive reasoning.

What you're saying is that because we haven't yet observed the billionth test drop, it is unreasonable, and unscientific to suppose that it will fall to the floor like all the other times.

that's not how science works buddy.

How do we know that gravity existed before there were people? there was nobody to observe, Is it unreasonable to suppose that gravity existed before people?

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

I know. I'm saying when Creationist talk about evolution, they are not just talking about micro and macro... They are also talking about

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Abiogenisis aka Organic Evolution

and all other forms of evolution. Whereas evolutionist tend to only focus on micro and macroevolution because they have no evidence for any of the other forms. And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Mr_sprinkles

You're getting your idea of proofs wrong. Scientifically proving something is different to logically proving something.

No matter how many times you drop a ball and watch it hit the floor, you cannot say it is logically proven that on your billionth test drop, it will fall to the ground. It's only inductive reasoning.

What you're saying is that because we haven't yet observed the billionth test drop, it is unreasonable, and unscientific to suppose that it will fall to the floor like all the other times.

that's not how science works buddy.

How do we know that gravity existed before there were people? there was nobody to observe, Is it unreasonable to suppose that gravity existed before people?

But hey lets use your logic for a second. The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 1 inch per year. Guess what kind of conclusion you can come up with by saying the earth is billions of years old?

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]If they microevolve for a few million years, they'll still be the same species just with small variations. This is of course, assuming that the earth is billions of years old. Funky_Llama

Wrong. ;) The variations are only minor over a short amount of time. Over a long amount of time, the changes, or course, get bigger.

No, im saying that because we haven't seen the first test drop that it is unreasonable.

But hey lets use your logic for a second. The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 1 inch per year. Guess what kind of conclusion you can come up with by saying the earth is billions of years old?

Silenthps

our planet and moon is a complicated gravitational system, and so funnily enough doesn't behave quite as simply as that. the rate of change has varied a lot over time. How do we know if we weren't there? observations of the things it caused, how they have changed, etc etc. all sorts of things to do with tide, and even how fast the earth spins.

You are using "my logic" it's true. You're just don't have as much data available, nor do you know how to interpret it effectively. Nor do i really. but scientist do...

back to the bit you highlighted-

So what you're saying is that we may have dropped it abillion times, and it may have fallen to the floor every time, but just because we tested it a billion times doesn't give us grounds to assume that if we'd started testing a week earlier, the ball would've behaved the same. no?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]If they microevolve for a few million years, they'll still be the same species just with small variations. This is of course, assuming that the earth is billions of years old. Silenthps

Wrong. ;) The variations are only minor over a short amount of time. Over a long amount of time, the changes, or course, get bigger.

We can easily observe the differences between species based on their locality. Changes that mean they can't interbreed, even if they look similar.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]If they microevolve for a few million years, they'll still be the same species just with small variations. This is of course, assuming that the earth is billions of years old. Silenthps

Wrong. ;) The variations are only minor over a short amount of time. Over a long amount of time, the changes, or course, get bigger.

before you say "it's still a dog though!" when does evolution ever say you go from one group to another? No biologist will tell you we evolved from apes. we are apes. Dogs didn't change from mammals into dogs, they are mammals.

mammals didn't change from vertibrates into mammals, they are vertibrates.

and so on.

it works forwards aswell. Chihuahuas didn't evolve from dogs- they are dogs.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]No, im saying that because we haven't seen the first test drop that it is unreasonable.

But hey lets use your logic for a second. The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 1 inch per year. Guess what kind of conclusion you can come up with by saying the earth is billions of years old?

Mr_sprinkles

our planet and moon is a complicated gravitational system, and so funnily enough doesn't behave quite as simply as that. the rate of change has varied a lot over time. How do we know if we weren't there? observations of the things it caused, how they have changed, etc etc. all sorts of things to do with tide, and even how fast the earth spins.

You are using "my logic" it's true. You're just don't have as much data available, nor do you know how to interpret it effectively. Nor do i really. but scientist do...

back to the bit you highlighted-

So what you're saying is that we may have dropped it abillion times, and it may have fallen to the floor every time, but just because we tested it a billion times doesn't give us grounds to assume that if we'd started testing a week earlier, the ball would've behaved the same. no?

]No, im saying we havent even dropped it a single time.Silenthps

The comparison is innept in many ways. You can't equate the acceptance of evolution to belief in God.

They are pretty much both equally skeptics. Only diffrence is, people who deny God, tend to hate him. So it's usually a bias that tips them to the other side.Silenthps

Hoe can you hate something you don't believe exists?

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]They are pretty much both equally skeptics. Only diffrence is, people who deny God, tend to hate him. So it's usually a bias that tips them to the other side.MetalGear_Ninty

Hoe can you hate something you don't believe exists?

LOL I love that quote you have. "GOD IS DEAD. HE REMAINS DEAD. AND WE KILLED HIM" I have always thought that if we were created by some being or species, we killed them all. LOL. Machines and robots will do the same to us.

[QUOTE="NaiKoN9293"]lets see. denying God which has been proven by noone shouldn't require a lot of skepticism. Denying evolution which has been proven by science should require a lot of skepticism.ASK_Story

There's no evidence for evolution, just a bunch of theories. There are no infallible proofs. Science hasn't proven anything, just brought in more questions than answers.

Did you ever hear the saying "It take more faith to believe in evolution?" Well, the saying is true. Science has not proven or disapproven evolution. And likewise, science has not disapproven the existence of God or a Supreme Being.

So how can you say science proved evolution? Which textbook and school are you studying from? Monkey University?

oh noez.

Somebody strayed from GGD and found himself wildly out of his depth.

A lot of what you said in that post didn't even really make any logical sense.

Excellent topic Domatron. This really will be interesting. :D

Evolution could be proven as fact, if it was correct. God on the other hand, can neither be proven nor disproven. For God to exist, he must also have been able to exist before he created the laws of Science, therefore meaning we would not necessarily be able to prove him using those very laws which he created. An athiest's whole argument is that God cannot be scientifically proven so why should they believe in him, this requires more skeptism because they cannot and are not able to disprove him. Whereas Evolution, is merely a natural thoery, which can be proven defintely one way or the other, so this, in turn, requires very little skepticism to not believe in it.

Excellent topic Domatron. This really will be interesting. :D

Evolution could be proven as fact, if it was correct. God on the other hand, can neither be proven nor disproven. For God to exist, he must also have been able to exist before he created the laws of Science, therefore meaning we would not necessarily be able to prove him using those very laws which he created. An athiests whole argument is that God cannot be scientifically proven so why should they believe in him, this requires more skeptism because they cannot and are not able to disprove him. Whereas Evolution, is merely a natural thoery, which can be proven defintely one way or the other,so this, in turn, requires very little skepticism to not believe in it.

Lansdowne5

Except if the scientific theory of evolution has more evidence in favor of it (which it does) then it requires more skepticism to not believe in it rather than not believing in something with no proof one way or another.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

Excellent topic Domatron. This really will be interesting. :D

Evolution could be proven as fact, if it was correct. God on the other hand, can neither be proven nor disproven. For God to exist, he must also have been able to exist before he created the laws of Science, therefore meaning we would not necessarily be able to prove him using those very laws which he created. An athiests whole argument is that God cannot be scientifically proven so why should they believe in him, this requires more skeptism because they cannot and are not able to disprove him. Whereas Evolution, is merely a natural thoery, which can be proven defintely one way or the other,so this, in turn, requires very little skepticism to not believe in it.

metroidfood

Except if the scientific theory of evolution has more evidence in favor of it (which it does) then it requires more skepticism to not believe in it rather than not believing in something with no proof one way or another.

No, because my point is that either way, Evolution can be proven. So to not believe in it at the stage where it has not been proven yet takes much less skepticism than it does to completely discount God.

[QUOTE="metroidfood"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

Excellent topic Domatron. This really will be interesting. :D

Evolution could be proven as fact, if it was correct. God on the other hand, can neither be proven nor disproven. For God to exist, he must also have been able to exist before he created the laws of Science, therefore meaning we would not necessarily be able to prove him using those very laws which he created. An athiests whole argument is that God cannot be scientifically proven so why should they believe in him, this requires more skeptism because they cannot and are not able to disprove him. Whereas Evolution, is merely a natural thoery, which can be proven defintely one way or the other,so this, in turn, requires very little skepticism to not believe in it.

Lansdowne5

Except if the scientific theory of evolution has more evidence in favor of it (which it does) then it requires more skepticism to not believe in it rather than not believing in something with no proof one way or another.

No, because my point is that either way, Evolution can be proven. So to not believe in it at the stage where it has not been proven yet takes much less skepticism than it does to completely discount God.

Except God can't be proven. So it takes more skepticism to not believe something that has plenty of evidence (even if it hasn't been completely and thoroughly beyond doubt proven) rather than something with no evidence that can't be disproved.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

I know. I'm saying when Creationist talk about evolution, they are not just talking about micro and macro... They are also talking about

Cosmic Evolution

Chemical Evolution

Abiogenisis aka Organic Evolution

and all other forms of evolution. Whereas evolutionist tend to only focus on micro and macroevolution because they have no evidence for any of the other forms. And they would rather laugh at a creationist for saying evolution has not been proven when they could actually be mature and say to the creationist "When I say evolution has been proven I am only talking about micro, I agree that all the other forms have not been proven."

Silenthps

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="metroidfood"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

Excellent topic Domatron. This really will be interesting. :D

Evolution could be proven as fact, if it was correct. God on the other hand, can neither be proven nor disproven. For God to exist, he must also have been able to exist before he created the laws of Science, therefore meaning we would not necessarily be able to prove him using those very laws which he created. An athiests whole argument is that God cannot be scientifically proven so why should they believe in him, this requires more skeptism because they cannot and are not able to disprove him. Whereas Evolution, is merely a natural thoery, which can be proven defintely one way or the other,so this, in turn, requires very little skepticism to not believe in it.

metroidfood

Except if the scientific theory of evolution has more evidence in favor of it (which it does) then it requires more skepticism to not believe in it rather than not believing in something with no proof one way or another.

No, because my point is that either way, Evolution can be proven. So to not believe in it at the stage where it has not been proven yet takes much less skepticism than it does to completely discount God.

Except God can't be proven. So it takes more skepticism to not believe something that has plenty of evidence (even if it hasn't been completely and thoroughly beyond doubt proven) rather than something with no evidence that can't be disproved.

I disagree but now it really boils down to what is considered 'evidence'.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

[QUOTE="astiop"]

See ASK_Story, the reason that the evolution vs creationism debate is still going on is because the creationist havent got the slightest clue on evolution, just like yourself. Otherwise you wouldn't be making rediculous statements like "oh how did life come to be" and "prove that humans evolved from monkeys", because evolution:

1. Does not touch the subject of the origin of life, Abiogenesis does (bet you haven't even heard of Abiogenesis but w/e)

2. The theory of evolution doesn't state half the jargon you like to state it does.

Creationists just have a limitless suply of **** to pull out of their asses and at one point or the other it gets completely pointless to debate them. Evolution has bin observed, yet you still deny it. A chicken would be more likely to try and understand a thing or two about science than you and some other creationists.

astiop

Did you just call evolution a story and microevolution "one small part" of it? It's retarded to say evolution has bin proven or observed? Go say that to all the scientists who actually observed and proved it. There is nothing in comon between science and jesus. All you got going for you is the Bible, all science has going for it is proof and facts, backed up by years and years of study and research.

You people spit in the faces of the people who try to push humanity forward and try to answer some of our biggest questions, and when they do, you take a massive dump all over their hard work and tremendous effort, and take the word of a book filled with fairytales instead.

To shame. You make me sick, every single one of you who pollute this world with your ignorance. I'm done with all these creationist threads. There is no further point in spending another second arguing with you.

Super succinct fella, i'm with you!

Oh goodness I thought this thread had died long ago. Oh well seems like the poll results are pretty clear, people think that evolution takes more skepticism to deny.

There is a distinct difference between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism.Theokhoth

Could you elaborate on that a little?