You haven't observed the people on this site very well...

Without man, God would not exist.

sooo if harry potter could be wrote "thosands years ago" it would be considered the theory of everything?

Shit, now i understand the red thumbs
I mean the bible was written thousand of years ago before that the theory of evolution, which means the bible is not against it, but rather written on the beliefs of that time

lol i hope you're not serious

I have listen to people say that the Bible is against evolution, something that makes me laught because it was written long before that theory was created by Darwin
Of course the bible story of the world is contrary to the evolution, meaning that some christians don't believe in the theory of evolution

I realized my mistake, and it was that i translated support to my lenguage in my brain, which gave it a different meaning. I understood support as a direct thing like
"Darwin is wrong"

lol if darwin is wrong then we are all fuck cause most of our biological studies are wrong

*roll sarcasm* You must be some fucking genius.

**heartlessrobot rolls sarcasm** I think you were looking for this.

Eeyep.

As an atheist-agnostic I respect your right to believe whatever you like. I think it's a fair question to ask a scientist who deals with empirical evidence on a daily basis how they came to decide upon a single explanation informed largely by Abrahamic theology however. Who says it wasn't one of the countless other gods? Or for that matter something far too complex and existing on too many dimensions for our tiny little fragile monkey brains to even comprehend or discuss?

You my friend earn a thumb and my respect.


This makes me very happy

You sir are so very true.
pic unrelated.

can you prove that god exists is the real question. see you can take god out of science and it will still make sense which means that there probably isn't one. i am not against religion but i think that if you think that there is a correlation between religion and science then why don't you just believe in science and throw out the stuff that you cant prove. what would happen if everyone stopped believing in god and just science i honestly think it would be better for mankind because science has no arguing factions like religion does

i disagree on not being able to prove God exist because you can through reasoning. (5 proofs of St. Aquinas). there are things science can't answer. and the 2 go together. Its not fair to say the world is better without religion because people might fight over religion but its not like the world would even change because people always try to kill and a counterpoint is science creates things like nukes that can destroy millions and people use science just as much as religion if not more to fight. people will fight over anything.

i am 100% sure that that the pros and cons in science are far better then the pros and cons in religion. and the only way to have a good debate on god is by having a third party but that would require aliens because every human intelligent human being has already taken sides in this debate. but i would wonder if aliens came to earth and they saw religion going on they might think we are insane

well you can be a 100% sure because u don't believe but if u did you would say religion because eternal life. its not insane at all to have religion. People are actually religious by nature. Thats why all throughout history you see people worshiping and trying to praise to a superior being because we can know that their is something that is greater, that created everything.
P.S. thanks for not being a douche for disagreeing. and actually giving back good arguments points instead of being a asshole

if their was a god don't you think he would accept people into to heaven if they lived good lives but didn't believe in him. i though god was merciful?

is* instead of was lol

The amount of logic in your answer makes me happy

Belief in a god does not make for stupid, uneducated people. I'm not saying there aren't whack-o Christians out there, but you can't say there aren't whack-o atheists out there either. You can believe in god AND science. Just let people believe, I mean, who suffers from someone else finding happiness in god? So many people get through depression and trauma through religion, using it as a way to cope.
Science tells people who've lost someone that they will never see them again. Religion gives people hope.

TL;DR I'm not so sure that if everyone suddenly stopped believing in God that the world would Improve.

yeah im cool with people finding happiness in god. but when we start wars over religion its stupid which is why i think that we would be better off without religion

The Crusades?
More about money, To be honest. Yes, religion, but also not.
Though you do have a point.

thank fucking god somebody else sees that there is not just black and white

Yeah, there's asian and hispanic too.

There is a definite schism between religion and science. I'm not saying that you cannot believe in god and understand science as well. All I am saying is that it is illogical to implement god into already substantiated scientific theories. You cannot mix an untestable hypothesis into an already stable theory. Sure you can say that god spurred evolution, but there is no way to scientifically test or prove that hypothesis, and it is already in bad standing since evolution and natural selection are already pretty well understood and there is no logical place for a deity to be in that theory. I don't care if you are a christian and believe in science, but there is a definite barrier between religion and science. Also I am pretty sure that the romans had a leg up on the whole extent of science at around jesus' time. Seeing as the bible is mostly stories and the romans were had a good grasp on science from what they stole from the greeks.

You are using Ockham's razor (that which does not need to be included in a theory is extraneous and therefore should not be included) to argue that God has no place in science. This is only partially true. You are correct that God, the deity himself, cannot be examined by science, but that does not exclude his existence as a possibility all together. Just as saying God spurred evolution does not make a good argument for the existence of God, saying evolution was naturally spurred down does not disprove God. The key issue here is absolute creation. Science does not know how nothing could come to be from nothing, and it is logical that contingent things could not have existed in an infinite chain. In contrary to Ockham's argument, God is not an extraneous addition to a scientific theory, but rather an alternative in itself. As long as scientists have no explanation for what could have caused the Big Bang, your argument can never apply to God. I know about quantum mechanics and physics, but these are just theories right now and shaky at that. Furthermore, if God is this supernatural thing then it makes sense that we cannot measure him by natural means. It is illogical to expect that God could be explained by science.
Also, it is a popular belief that God has guided evolution not with natural selection but instead of natural selection. The argument is this: by natural selection, it only makes sense that a species would acquire abilities relevant to their survival. For instance, by natural selection you would not expect a frog to develop eyes that can focus strong enough to see the surface of the moon. Following this logic how, then, could natural selection account for higher intellectual properties to the brain such as the ability to do calculus? While many say the brain has advanced thro years of evolution, it seems it has actually expounded outside of natural selection's bounds. If natural selection was not guiding evolution in the human brain's case, then what was?

I am an anthropologist and have studied in great depth human evolution. While the brain size of humans has increased exponentially since Homo erectus, this does not warrant a divine hand to make. The brain size of homonids is one of the last things to develop, we get animals anatomically identical, save for the head, with the dawn of Homo erectus. There are many theories as to why brain size increased, but it is most likely the product of many factors. Probably the most important one is the advent of active hunting and consuming meat, which would allow for larger brain sizes to develop. Also the climate at around this time in africa was very unstable, changing drastically over relatively short periods of time. A creature that could adapt to different climates without much effort would be most likely to survive. This is where brain size comes in. Being able to solve problems and form social groups was essential to early hominin survival. Over the course of millions of years brain size grew larger as species became more adaptable and more social, eventually leading to us. The advent of a deity, once again, is not neccessary to explain humans, and the fact that there are several different species of humans, even ones that had culture and probably a belief system other than Homo sapiens existed, kind of throws a wrench in the whole creation thing. But the fact of the matter is, natural selection has shaped the human brain, not god's hand.

Did Einstein really use the word "lame" to describe it?
Seems like he would be more eloquent.
Like "Science without Religion is totally not as radical."

Lame as in unable to walk or progress.

"totally not as radical" still sounds better.

This is the mid 20th century, words like that were more common. He wanted an adjective that was similar to blind.

Dude I'm joking, if that wasn't clear.

I'm not good with that sort of thing.

sorry.

That's exactly how I think

again..

A scientific theory is a body of knowledge based on facts that describes their interaction in the simplest possible way. It is subject to change as the body of known fact changes, but always describes the body of fact as accurately as possible. There may be gaps in a theory, but the body of facts must support any tentative conclusions that are drawn.

no, this is the same argument, but in Australia.

Is that you, dad?

"Ha, look at that sad little Octopus."

it's funny because Haruhi is god

So the Bible is wrong about Genesis and yet women are still not given equality in the Church?

My friend who goes to a christian private school refuses to believe in evolution at all. Just saiyan...

nothing in the bible disproves evolution

The reason I don't believe in evolution is because there is a lot of evidence against it.(youtube links below)
http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=KXU8E4C5SHQ
http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00

Earth is 6,000 years old
He opens with "Two timelines, one which the bible is saying and one which evolution is saying"
No. Geography. Also the bible has no more say on the age of the earth than any other book. Cold hard data is what you need.
He then goes on to explain those timelines. His analysis of the literal biblical timeline is fine, then he gets to the big bang theory and is much less so. He say's it was 20 billion years ago then drastically downplays everything from then til now, as well as completely misrepresenting abiogenesis and how life works. Life forms didn't just "appear", it's a complicated and multi stepped process. Life doesn't have an "interest" in reproducing itself, it was reproducing long before it could be called life. We're less than two minutes in and he's already either lying or demonstrating gross ignorance as to the topic he's arguing against.
Again, his biblical argument is fine. When he gets back to talking about geography though, he talks about the idea that older rocks are under younger rocks (Principal of something or other, I forget) as if it were a law. It's not. It's a principal. A guidline. It doesn't always hold true. Scientists are aware of this, it's not a problem for them.
Oh god no. Oh, GOD no. Fuck this. I'm 6 minutes and 20 seconds in and he's talking about taxonomy. Worms, fish, frogs, cats, chimpanzee, human is how he says it is. This is much closer, but not even halfway, to how it really is. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg/600px-Tree_of_life_SVG.svg.png

We have more more proof of evolution than we do of gravity. I'm sure all the evidence was manufactured just to fool us for some strange reason.

Just watched a lot of the first video, and it's so full of bullshit it's funny.

If you're going to post evidence against evolution, can you please post it in a form other than long videos on youtube? I don't deal with long videos well, my attention span fades in and out. If you've got something textual, I'd be happy to respond to it. As for the videos, I'll do my best, so brb.

Catholics also believe in the holy trinity

They can't be taken seriously

>they are christian
>therefore they cannot be taken seriously

psst, thats wrong

What's wrong?

people who believe in the trinity (most christians) can't be taken seriously.

galileo believed in the holy trinity

Most Christians don't believe in the holy trinity in-fact, it's only the Catholics and their sub-branches

wait, really? well shit o a monkey and call it beavus. i need to brush up on my religions

Okay, christfag here. I'm been a christfag all my life, and whenever anybody asks me about evolution, I disregard the theory (much to our school's antichrist's chagrin). Not because of superiority of the Bible, but because there is limited knowledge about the Earth's origins. Also, it is just a theory, I don't see how ignorant people can accept a (still unproven) theory as fact. And sleep confuses me about evolution...
TL;DR: I don't believe in evolution because it doesn't have overwhelming evidence, it's still an unproven theory and sleep.
>Gif related, it''s FJ's reaction.

There was no logic in this comment.
Good day sir.

can people stop telling me what a theory is and explain to me how knocking myself unconscious for a a minimum of 8 hours per day (no matter how many predators are around) is beneficial to survival?

What anon said. Do you seriously not know the difference between a scientific theory and a theory in the way the general public uses? Theorys are close enough to facts that they are very unlikely to change. If you say it cant be tested/observed in a laboratory it very much can.

i have a suspicion you're trolling..
this has been covered in previous comments..

A scientific theory is a body of knowledge based on facts that describes their interaction in the simplest possible way. It is subject to change as the body of known fact changes, but always describes the body of fact as accurately as possible. There may be gaps in a theory, but the body of facts must support any tentative conclusions that are drawn.

A supposition intended to explain something. Not the be all and end all on the subject...

Why would you say it is still "unproven" though? We know for a fact that it is, well, a fact. We can observe it happening in both the laboratory and through geological records.

Yet you believe in a god that cannot be studied like evolution can?

Evolutions is a theory on adaptations to live. We adapt to survive. Animals adapt to survive. Even single celled organisms that cannot think, adapt to survive.

So tell me how you can believe in a god that has no physical proof of existence yet do not believe in a theory that has very strong evidence to support it.

Look, I'm not gonna start a bible fight on the internet. There is no point to it. I've stated my beliefs, that's all I wanted to do.

Well your beliefs are ignorant and biased for no reason.

If you state your beliefs you should be ready to back them up and fight for them. You have that right. Here is a tip. No one will take you seriously if you tuck tail and run away when someone provides a good argument to what you believe.

For me, I will fight for my beliefs, until I am proven to be right/wrong or we come to a common agreement of sorts. I will always have a decent argument to refute someone else that does not agree. Do I always win? No, but I never just state my case and walk away when someone else disagrees.

Well that's interesting. I am taking my Confirmation classes and the first day the teacher made a joke about evolution. She said it's dumb because she can't still breathe underwater. Almost everyone laughed. I died a little.

How

i wish the people at my school would at least read or study a little bit about evolution before dismissing it, but instead they listen to a teacher, who claims a lot of bullshit like, "i prayed to a person with Spina bifida, and amazingly before my eyes it bent and healed to normal."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

....yeah they do....

As a Christian, I think here's evolution is a solid theory, supported by much evidence, and anyone who doesn't believe in it is a dumbass conservative redneck.

Most American Christians doesn't believe in evolution.
America is not the only country in the world with Christian residents, nor is it the one with most, but its population certainly is the most vocal about it.

Teaching creationism alone has been illegal in American public schools since 1969, and the only state to teach both theories is Kentucky.

Actually I am an American Christian and solidly believe in evolution :D

Sorry about that, I was signed out. Same question as below though.

Ah ok

Oh here's the way it works, I believe in God, but I believe he made the main roots of all animals. I don't exactly believe in the whole "Adam and Eve" part of the bible, for the bible has been changed a good amount for how long it has been passed on. So basically my theory is that god created Earth but it wasn't just like "BOOM! ANIMALS OUT OF FUCKIN NO WHERE!" It was much more of a soft change

I guess, but the Bible says that it is completely true, and if one part is false, then the whole thing must be false. What does the creation story mean, if it is not the creation story?

There are many parts of the bible that very well could be false. The amount of times it has been passed down has caused it to change a good few times

It's pretty ridiculous to think that the original story of the creation of the world was messed up. Even if it was slightly messed up, there isn't much room for evolution. Also, if one part of the bible is messed up, then how do we know if the core beliefs aren't also messed up?

Well thats the thing, we don't. Its scary I know but you have no way of telling whats right and wrong. Hell for all we know we could turn into flying fish people when we die and our god could be a half monkey half hippo monster who eats babies, but we don't know for sure. We can never know until we die.

Right. I figure that Christianity has more evidence for it than other religions, because it wasn't created within one time period. The Bible was created over a very long time, and the fact that it's even coherent is impressive. But evolution has a lot of evidence too, so I don't know.

Exactly why I have them coexist.

But they don't coexist. At least not very well. It's all very confusing. Though I suppose believing that Jesus died for me is the only really important thing to believe in, so I don't have to worry too much.

Two major things you need to believe in is God and that Jesus died for your sins. That's all Christianity is. That and avoiding sinning like crazy

Well the God thing is kind of obvious. Yeah, I'm not so great at the avoiding sins bit...

Same...

Porn kinda sucks huh? That's what I have problems with. Other sins are easier to avoid, like being mean to people, or swearing. Well maybe not swearing.

Those are my only problems too. But the only ones you aren't suppose to say is God Damn and Oh my God, or just use God's name in vain in general

The bible also says not to be vulgar, but maybe that's like a proverbs things, where it just suggests it. Proverbs is a pretty good book, lots of advice in it.

Ok, so I have a problem with swearing too

*ok

I think the evidence for evolution is pretty solid, I thing that I understand that is being disputed is the origin of life, being started by a deity or accident. And also was this evolution guided or not.

Chinese Christians and central and south Americans as well.