CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What is wrong with God being responsible for Evolution?
At first I thought this would be a debate for only Theists, but I realize that it can also pertain to Atheists. We keep having debates about whether Evolution is correct, but why is there so much opposition? What is so weird about God using Evolution to create all life? For Atheists, is there something about Evolution that would not allow God to be responsible for it? I just don't know why it has become God vs. Evolution when everything else we have discovered is the way God does it.
It's because the Bible specifically states the world was created around 10,000 years ago and that Eve was made form Adam's rib and Adam himself just appeared out of thin air/dust/mud.
I don't know if you've noticed, but that term has been adopted as the word to describe a higher power/Creator, in general. Plus, in the Bible they say his name is "Yahweh" and God himself says his name is "I Am". People just capitalize the "G" to acknowledge that we don't know what to call the higher power, therefore lets just call him "God".
Do you honestly believe that it is only Christians that argue against evolution? There are even atheists that are against it. Judaism/Christianity/Islam all have the same world origin stories... But Cartman specifically said theists, probably for a reason. If he was specifically talking about Christians, then he should have said so.
Any time someone thinks of a god, they think of the Abrahamic God. They assume that the only way for there to be a god, is if evolution didn't take place. I don't think that is accurate, as I pointed out.
No, but the context of this debate, namely made by a white American who supports gun rights and has no clue about any country other than his own, is blatantly about the Christian opposition to the concept.
Please never try to become a detective, you'd have criminals bribing people to hire you.
So you only present evidence for your ideas based on what you think the debate Creator wants to hear? Why wouldn't you just present what you actually believed instead of getting in little fights about nothing?
No, but the context of this debate, namely made by a white American who supports gun rights and has no clue about any country other than his own, is blatantly about the Christian opposition to the concept.
That's just you trying to wiggle out of this hole you've dug. He already responded and told me that "god" was open for interpretation. Considering he is the one who created the debate, I guess that would mean that you are wrong. Maybe you should go take some more pictures of yourself and leave debating for a while.
Incorrect, sir. The English translation guves credence to such an interpretation. The Hebrew (or greek, not so sure anymore) makes note that the time of creation is unquantifiable, in other words, a very long time. Also we don't know the authors intention. It could simply be metaphorical.
That's religions favorite ace in the hole. Anything is metaphorical when it doesn't stack up with science. So maybe God is just a metaphor? If that's the case he isn't responsible for evolution, evolution is responsible for him.
Sort of, there is the possibility that a God existed made the big bang happen then went off and did his thing elsewhere. That possibility exists really only because we have nothing reasonable to fill that void yet. There was a time when we had nothing reasonable to fill the void of how humans came to be, a God had the rights to it, but we learned what actually was responsible and that God lost those rights.
I see relying on a God, any god, as a temporary fix, for answers.
Not really, we truly cannot 100% accurately assess what the bible meant unless we know the authors purpose and intentions. Also it's in Hebrew. That makes the translations even harder for scribes.
Anything is metaphorical when it doesn't stack up with science.
Incorrect again sir, must I lay the notion that a deity can easily use the things we know of today as instruments of it's plan? A bacterial infection in anceint times had no reasonable explanation besides curse or something, now we know what these bacteria do and are capable of through observation and experimentation. Are you going to say that God, in no sense, can use simple bacteria as an instrument? I feel as if many non-believers tend to believe that a deity must only use supernatural processes to complete it's tasks.
So maybe God is just a metaphor?
For what, precisely?
If that's the case he isn't responsible for evolution, evolution is responsible for him.
I can agree to a nice extent being the agnostic that I am, but again are we going to assume that a deity cannot use the method of evolution to bring about creatures of all sorts?
We can not agree that God used the method of evolution to bring about man because that would require that God a bacterium. We are stated to be made in God's image. We were made from bacteria long ago that one day eventually became man's oldest ancestor. If this is true, that God is nothing more than bacteria, then that would make the dating system in the bible wrong. Things do not stack up, literately, or philosophically. Of course this is all based on the assumption that we are talking about Yahweh. Which seems to be the only God opposed to evolution.
We can not agree that God used the method of evolution to bring about man because that would require that God a bacterium.
That is inherently illogical if I may say. Sir, you must take note that a deity can simply use evolutionary processes to bring about organisms. We truly are composed of abiotic matter that was able to evolve into something greater. If a deity creates these building blocks is it not using evolution as a method of creation?
We are stated to be made in God's image.
Do you truly understand what that means? I hope you realize that God cannot have an image of any sort since he is outside of space-time and thus lacks the components of molecular structure.
We were made from bacteria long ago that one day eventually became man's oldest ancestor.
I can agree with this point here, yes.
If this is true, that God is nothing more than bacteria, then that would make the dating system in the bible wrong.
You have nothing to lend credence to such a claim. One must ask what created these bacterium or at least how did they become living. We know that the creator, whether deity or the universe always held the intention to create life where certain requirements can be met. Earth is one of those places, but then what created that process? Why do proteins do as they do?
Things do not stack up, literately, or philosophically
You have not proven this to be true, nor your other assertion. You are simply rambling as of now in hopes of striking a plausible point, but to no avail you have yet to find one.
Of course this is all based on the assumption that we are talking about Yahweh. Which seems to be the only God opposed to evolution.
If God made us, and is also responsible for evolution, God is either a bacterium himself, or non existent. We were made IN the image, not in a pre image.
I said:
"We are stated to be made in God's image."
You asked:
"Do you truly understand what that means?"
My answer is apparently not, so why don't you explain to me what it means to be made in God's image?
You asked:
"In what sense is God opposed to evolution?"
My answer is what it has been since the beginning, we were made in God's image. We are either supposed to be cells, because God made us perfectly, or God is a human, but humans used to be nothing more than cells.
I don't think you properly assessed my argument, sir.
Properly assess the biblical verse that has the tendency for many people to believe the Earth was created between 6,000-10,000 years.
2 Peter 3:8 - But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’
Do you notice that within the text the word "like" appears? It eliminates the absolute belief that one day is equivalent to one-thousand years. Peter, in context here, uses a simile to show that God is beyond time. In the days of the writings of this book this would be an acceptable simile, but now we tend to expect higher quantities of numbers to appear.
You must also take into account that anything a deity does must be understandable to humans if the deity wishes to lay an edict of command or to thrust a point or message across it's subjects. Therefore, saying a day is like a thousand years is only necessary. What is your next rebuttal?
We'll the oldest Humanoid fossils are 6-7 million years old. Also Earth is 4.54 billion years old. And if everything was made 10,000 years ago we mammals wouldn't be here yet, also the world will be covered in Water.
I think that you are taking the bible far too literally. It's not meant to say that the world was created here, why, and how, it's just supposed to give possible teachings of how life should be lived.
The Bible is not a history book, it's a book of teachings. And really. Just because the history of a book of stories doesn't match up doesn't make the book in itself useless.
I personally think the Bible should be read as a book of fables, with many morals. So, there is nothing wrong with God being responsible for Evolution, i just don't think it's really relevant at all to the Bible itself.
Note: I do not follow the teachings of the Bible, just trying to make a good debate here
I've heard it said that science answers "how" questions while religion answers "why" questions. I think, throughout history, religion has always tried to answer both. The motions of the heavenly bodies, the causes of sickness, of earthquakes, of lightning, rain and the seasons have all had religious explanations at one time or another. It is only after a few hundred years of scientific advancement that we can confidently conclude that most religions "how" answers were completely wrong, having been replaced with testable and consistently accurate naturalistic explanations.
The problem is that devout religious followers tend not to embrace having their long held beliefs challenged by contradictory evidence (just ask Galileo). A belief predicated on the perfect words of the creator of the universe probably shouldn't contain any errors or contradictions of any kind, or else the whole belief might be called into question.
This is where the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection comes in; the ramifications of which come into direct conflict with a literal interpretation of many religious creation stories. If you can't take your religion's creation story seriously, and must instead interpret it as allegory or metaphor or mythos or whatever, then how can you be sure that other portions of your religious doctrine aren't also allegory or myth? By what methodology do you determine which of your beliefs are based on fact and which are based on fiction?
The fundamentalist realizes that if they give an inch, they'll lose a mile. They cannot afford to accept any error or contradiction in their holy doctrine even if it means turning a blind eye to evidence and reality to keep their beliefs intact.
The fundamentalist realizes that if they give an inch, they'll lose a mile.
The funny thing though is that they have already given up many many inches. Like you said, they had explanations that have all been wrong. I guess it never gets easier to give up on an explanation.
"I guess it never gets easier to give up on an explanation."
Yeah. Just ask any evolutionist. Evolution is a theory without any real evidence to back it up. But people still cling to it, because the alternative is abhorrent to them.
No, it is the people who aren't giving up their beliefs. It is silly to claim that Evolutionists aren't willing to give up their beliefs when it is something that is newer.
Evolution is a theory without any real evidence to back it up.
This is blatantly false. There is lots of evidence.
I don't see a reason why Christians can't believe that God uses Evolution to run the world. It isn't like we have God vs. electricity, God vs. fire, or God vs. gravity. Why can't Evolution be another scientific discovery that God is responsible for? Why is it that Evolution is the scientific discovery that conflicts with God?
Oh, the guy you responded to? I just figured he was on topic and you were responding based on that. This happens a lot when I'm debating with you. I skip other peoples arguments so that I can read yours lol.
There aren't many scientists who disagree with Evolution. It is a small handful. Plus, the number that don't agree are highly overblown. If Evolution were wrong it would be easily disproven. If Evolution is wrong you should be able to find something that can't possibly happen if Evolution were true. That's how you demonstrate it is wrong.
Another reason asides from the one i posted in my own comment is that, evolution says we evolved from another species. A species that apes also evolved from. Christians don't want God to be an ape like being, they want him to be human just like them.
Many fundamentalists thought witches needed to be hunted down and destroyed. Many fundamentalists denied the Earth was round. Some fundamentalists think God hates fags and they should picket the funerals of soldiers. One thing I can almost guarantee: fundamentalists are wrong.
Most of the Garden of Eden story would have to be considered symbolic somehow. Or, ignored completely.
If someone wants to believe that a god used evolution as some sort of tool that is fine, if they want that taught in schools as science then I have a problem.
Evolution is a scientific theory and tacking a god on there as being responsible for the process is not scientific, the idea of a god controlling the process cannot be tested.
I don't see why theistic theories can't be taught alongside scientific theories. At the end of the day, they're both just theories. At least it would help keep children away from a one track mind.
Not a theory my ass! People still speculate on the existence of God. Green Eggs and Ham is a story. The idea that intelligence could be behind our creation isn't. If you're referring to the 6000 year old earth theory, then yeah... Keep that shit out of school.
Until the 70's people were being taught that all organisms needed sunlight to survive, and then we explored down towards the bottom of the ocean where there is NO sunlight and found living organisms. They had to tell everyone, "Wait, nevermind, scratch that!"
As long as there are two differing opinions on something that is completely unknown, they should both be taught or neither should be taught.
I'm not talking about the creation story in the Bible... I thought you just said you weren't specifically talking about that one either. What in the hell is-- do people think I am a Christian? Good grief!
I'm not talking about the creation story in the Bible... I thought you just said you weren't specifically talking about that one either.
In this set of arguments, I was.
The difference with intelligent design as compared to the organisms need sunlight thing is that we observed every animal that we came across needed sunlight, but we don't observe any direct intelligent design. That would be why I say keep it out of school. Plus, I haven't seen any actually formulated intelligent design theory. I have heard at least 3 different versions, and 2 of them relied on the Bible.
My point was that we had only observed organisms depending on sunlight until we explored the deep ocean. As of now, we have not observed "God", but maybe some day we will. It's a stretch, but it could happen.
We also haven't observed the Big Bang. We also can't say that the world was created by something without intelligence, because that is beyond our observations of nature, which suggests that intelligence comes from something else with intelligence.
To say that there is no evidence for "God", is the same as saying that there is no evidence for UFOs. People have seen UFOs, but that doesn't mean they are aliens. People have also died and said they went to "heaven". It is possible that they were just dreaming, which is a strange thing to happen while dead, but as of now we do not have a solid explanation for what actually occurred. So I think NDEs would be good evidence for "God", although they could be falsified. All of this should be taught with this in mind. It would create a future generation that would be interested in finding answers, rather than accepting one thing as absolutely correct.
Do you realize how little we know about the brain and consciousness? They aren't separate planets. They're part of us, and we don't even fully understand them.
You didn't make that very clear lol. You just said creation, which is really just any theory that the universe had a Creator. The young-earth theory is so implausible, you can go ahead and check that off your list of things I don't believe in.
A scientific theory starts as a hypotheses. This idea is testable and after thorough examination by many disciplines it can be adjusted, tweaked to fit what we observe more accurately. If the resulting hypotheses survives enough tests it may be upgraded to a theory, meaning it is a very robust explanation of what we can see and that has withstood many tests from many disciplines.
In this way you cannot say both ideas of creation stories/evolution are theories and equal as one cannot be tested. To try conflate them as both theories defies what a scientific theory is and is academically dishonest. To claim they are both theories either diminishes what the term theory means in science or elevates the other idea to a status in science is cannot hold.
Scientific theories have been falsified time and time again. I would even argue that they are wrong most of the time and have to continually be readjusted.
The idea that the universe was created by something that is unintelligent is entirely outside observation. Actually, through observation we have only seen intelligence come from something else that is intelligent. A theist would continue that pattern and say that the ultimate source was intelligent as well.
I don't see why the Big Bang theory is considered evidence against God, when the person who actually proposed the idea was in fact a Catholic priest. He considered it to be further evidence FOR God. All I'm saying is that the door should be left open for the student to decide whether they think the ultimate source was intelligent or not. I am not saying that the Young-Earth theory should be taught. That's just silly.
Scientific theories have been falsified time and time again. I would even argue that they are wrong most of the time and have to continually be readjusted.
The fact that they change with observation to remain correct is a good thing. Creation stories do not have this strength and this can put them at odds with science at times.
The idea that the universe was created by something that is unintelligent is entirely outside observation
As is any creation story, and yet you have people claiming it is so without any evidence. The scientific theory of the big bang doesn't make any claims of 'without any gods' as science only makes claims of what it can show. Science should be taught as science, creation stories are not science backed or go through any scientific process and as such should not be taught as alternatives.
I don't see why the Big Bang theory is considered evidence against God,...All I'm saying is that the door should be left open for the student to decide whether they think the ultimate source was intelligent or not
Never said the BBT was evidence against any god.
I was just saying that creation stories cannot be conflated with scientific theories without sacrificing what a scientific theory means.
I assume you still hold the two idea to be equal despite the criteria for both ideas to be vastly different, basically scientific theories are based on testable criteria and creation stories are not.
The fact that they change with observation to remain correct is a good thing.
I totally agree, but nowadays they are often considered solid fact. You don't have to look any further than CreateDebate to see that lol.
Creation stories do not have this strength and this can put them at odds with science at times.
Right, but the ones we know are just that, stories. However, an intelligent creator is not at all refuted by science. I think that should be pointed out in an educational setting.
Never said the BBT was evidence against any god, it is only evidence for itself.
I never said you did, but it seemed like you wanted all theistic ideas taken out of a school setting.
I was just saying that creation stories cannot be conflated with scientific theories without sacrificing what a scientific theory means.
Damn, we often reach a point of miscommunication whenever we debate lol. The creationist theories are often anti-evolution and anti-big bang, but the idea of a "God" should not be discarded. And allowing it in the school setting, alongside the atheistic idea, as two possibilities, would probably lead to a more open-minded society willing to search for the answers to questions that many atheistic scientists and religious theists aren't willing to ask nowadays.
I assume you still hold the two idea to be equal despite the criteria for both ideas to be vastly different, basically scientific theories are testable.
I don't think the 6000 year old earth theory should be taught, if that is what you mean. I think our society has become extraordinarily closed minded. We won't make much progress like that. I think anything that is a reasonable possibility, should be taught. Students are being trained to be the same as the prior generation. They need to know what mysteries haven't been solved, so that maybe one day they will try and solve them and carry us forward. Facts should be taught as facts and theories should be taught as theories. Not enough emphasis is put on the difference between the two.
And allowing it in the school setting, alongside the atheistic idea, as two possibilities, would probably lead to a more open-minded society willing to search for the answers to questions that many atheistic scientists and religious theists aren't willing to ask nowadays.
Science is not inherently an 'atheistic idea'. Science is not bound by cultures or belief systems or languages. We can test scientific ideas brought forth based on scientific criteria by a scientist who ascribes to any belief system. One can be a scientist and believer of some religion. Science is a process not a belief system.
If any belief system is to be discussed in schools it should not be taught as an alternative to science. They are not comparative ideas as I noted that the criteria they are judged upon differs. One falls under cultural studies the other falls under whatever science it hails from (biology for example).
The creationist theories are often anti-evolution and anti-big bang...as two possibilities
I already noted where they differ and how one is a 'theory' and one is not. You still claim that there are 'creation theories' though without addressing the scientific criteria for a theory and then say we should compare the two as alternatives to each other.
One is based on science, science is a process, the other is not based in science but untestable ideas. You are saying we should compare apples and oranges.
I never said it was. Didn't I even mention a Catholic scientist in a prior argument?
I meant the atheistic idea, as in no God. I think the two possibilities (God or no God) should be pointed out in a school setting.
Science is a process not a belief system.
Yeah, this is what I mean by the miscommunication whenever we debate. Maybe my arguments just make more sense to me lol.
If any belief system is to be discussed in schools it should not be taught as an alternative to science.
Yeah, you typed a lot of unnecessary stuff lol. I completely agree, but I was never saying that a belief system should be taught as an alternative to science. Those are two totally different things. I think students should be taught that they can use science to try and find evidence for their belief systems.
You still claim that there are 'creation theories' though without addressing the scientific criteria for a theory and then say we should compare the two as alternatives to each other.
That is ridiculous. A creationist theory is not the same as a scientific theory. I am not even saying they are. A theory alone, can simply be a speculation. It isn't an entirely science based term.
I'm saying that the argument that this universe had a creator should be presented alongside the argument that it did not.
One is based on science, science is a process, the other is not based in science. You are saying we should compare apples and oranges
Can you just reread my previous argument with the clarification I have given you in mind? I feel like you rushed through it and misinterpreted most of what I said.
A keyword to look for is "idea", instead of "theory".
I quoted where you used the same language over throughout the discussion despite my clarifying they are different standards. We were discussing science then you started using 'atheistic ideas' without couching the statement as an aside, one could easily think you are using the terms interchangeably.
I'm saying that the argument that this universe had a creator should be presented alongside the argument that it did not.
If you are saying religion should be taught in schools I halfway agree with you. Currently these topics are off limits but that has issues with it. I feel some sort of cultural classes should be taught in public schools. Religion is part of a larger culture and this can make the teaching of it difficult. This has issues in the US though as that leaves out a large chunk of culture. The trick is to let this happen without opening the flood gates.
"creationist theories are often anti-evolution and anti-big bang, but the idea of a "God" should not be discarded. And allowing it in the school setting, alongside the atheistic idea, as two possibilities, would probably lead to a more open-minded society willing to search for the answers to questions that many atheistic scientists and religious theists aren't willing to ask nowadays."
I figured that when I said the "idea" of God and then said "atheistic idea", you would get what I meant.
If you are saying religion should be taught in schools I halfway agree with you.
Yes, but I also think the notion of a higher power should be taught outside of a religious context as well. Like a "what if..." If I was teaching a class on astronomy or space science, I would offer up the possibility that there may be life on other planets. The same should be done with the point of "creation". I would offer up the possibility that it had intelligence behind it. If you teach them as open mysteries with multiple opinions as to what the answer may be, students may become interested in trying to solve the mysteries themselves. In an age where students are basically just acquiring the thoughts of others, I think it is important to teach them to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Albert Einstein said imagination was more important than knowledge. That should be a lesson to everyone involved in education.
Thats the problem with most Atheist, they are more arrogant then the delusional theist that believe in magic, most atheist go by this logic, "we have no proof so it's not real" and I agree but only to a certain extent.
No one on this planet can tell me for sure that there is a God or that there isn't a God, only a fool would say such a thing, there are things our simple monkey brains can't understand and one of those things is what created or how did all the elements that created the particles for exsistence to even happencome come from, how did something come from nothing, some scientist say that this is the case, but those scientist again are missing the point, how does nothing exist, the concept of nothing had to come from somewhere.
So to your question, can God or what we would call God have created evolution and the answer is YES and to tell you the truth this is more logical then nothing, but again we have no proof so we must logically say we do not know.
The problem I have is that the reaction that seems to come with religious people. For example "A camera has a creator, therefore universe has a creator". There are massive jumps in logic for religious people and an Atheist admitting that a God is possible would probably lead to a massive jump in logic. So, I can see them being hesitant to admit that.
But, I still think it is less delusional to say you aren't open to the idea of a God existing as opposed to saying you aren't open to the possibility that the Bible isn't accurate.
That's what I believe. I don't imagine God as a bearded man in the clouds though. I also don't think humans were made in God's image, because I think it is very unlikely that we are the only highly intelligent species in the universe. I don't even know if "god" is the right term to use, because that is often associated with religion, specifically Abrahamic religions.
I don't think religion should be the deciding factor on what "God" could be. Many people look at this world and see all of the flaws, but if we live for eternity anyways, wouldn't our lives on earth seem very minor?
I've already described what I think my God is in several debates. I even described "my god" in one of your debates and you agreed with me. I also gave my description of "God" to Cartman in the past, and considering this is Cartman's debate, I don't feel the need to go into any details.
I've already described what I think my God is in several debates. I even described "my god" in one of your debates and you agreed with me. I also gave my description of "God" to Cartman in the past, and considering this is Cartman's debate, I don't feel the need to go into any details.
It's not God's way of creating things. Evolution is man's thinking and way of where life came from. God's way is the better way then man's. So Creation is the better explanation then Evolution. Nuff said, and I am out.
What are you talking about? Creation doesn't actually explain anything. It doesn't say He created each animal individually, it just says He created them. What method did he use? Did He create a system where all animals are related? He certainly created a lot of animals together. Evolution explains the "how". Where is the "how" of Creation? Maybe the "how" for Creation is Evolution.
Oh I hate to disagree but the belief that an unproven god created the world in 6 days is harder to get your head around than evolution/natural selection it is the adaption of an animal to its environment and makes sense. If a modern horse had the same four toes as the earliest recorded horse did it would be extinct natural selection adapted its hoove to suit it's new size and environment. Creation can be easy for say a child (not ment to sound hostile just an example anyone can get there head around it really) to get around because there really isn't much explaining to go along with it or evidence to back it up, evolution yes can be long winded with complicated explanations but once you start to understand it it becomes easier to get your head around. I think Christians are fully capable of believing evolution considering the early scripts didn't say specifically "day" it said "yom" which can mean any length of time so god could have done the creatures an plants through evolution upon millions and millions of years.
Oh I hate to disagree but the belief that an unproven god created the world in 6 days is harder to get your head around than evolution/natural selection it is the adaption of an animal to its environment and makes sense.
Well, I don't know about that. Saying a magical being snapped it's fingers and everything was created is a way easier explanation. Why go through the hassle of trying to figure stuff out? Sorry for the sarcasm.
Maybe He did. Darwin thought the Cambrian Explosion was a lot faster than expected, maybe that was God acting to speed things up. The process could have taken 70 million years without Him. You never know.
*you're. Also I hardly care for being a bigot against a group that is bigoted against every other religion, atheists, gays, pro choice advocates, secularists, pro separation of church and state advocates, "evolutionists", and anyone who masturbates.
Evolution is not unfalsifiable. Find a fossil of a creature in a different rock layer than expected. What is falsifiable about a being that is described to exist in a place that can't be observed at all? Something being true doesn't make it unfalsifiable.
So, when the guy says it is ridiculous to believe in Theistic Evolution because there is no proof for God, why did you dispute him saying he was 100% accurate?
That doesn't explain why you disputed him. He said that there was no reason to believe God was responsible because there is no proof of God. You basically agreed.
Adding God to the equation doesn't make the concept of evolution unfalsifiable. What is this "both" that you are talking about?
Uhh... No. Really, pretty much all of science is falsifiable. Turning any part into an unfalsifiable postulate without sufficient evidence is dangerous.
So, you agree that believing God is involved is a bad idea because it makes evolution unfalsifiable. You can claim all you want to disagree, but you actually don't.
Hmm... That's a different way to look at it... But it's not what I'm saying. Most likely, the reason one will go to Theistic Evolution is because they accept Evolution as unfalsifiable. Now, this is not "God getting involved and making Evolution seem unfalsifiable." This is a person believing all the things people tell them and believing that it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt.
Just because there are people who accept evolution without question doesn't mean that evolution suddenly becomes a fairy tale for everyone. What was your point?
You didn't understand what I was saying, but that's not your fault, as I've worded my previous dispute incorrectly. Unfalsifiable, yes. However, if one believes in Theistic Evolution, one believes both of the components to be unfalsifiable.
The only reason I don't believe god is guiding evolution is because I don't believe in god in the first place. There something being wrong with god being responsible for evolution might depend on what specific god you are talking about.
Because you can't posit a god unless you prove it exists and you can't say it caused evolution until you prove it did. Also because it says nothing of it in the bible, the basis of the entire religion. I'm not saying the bible is true but if you can't at least back your beliefs up with that then saying god caused evolution is the equivalent of being pulled out of your ass.
Presuming a god unaffiliated with religions which incorrectly assert the age of Earth or contain creation myths expressly contradictory to evolution, there is no inherent contradiction between the ideas. Of course, the very idea of god is fallacious but that is another debate entirely I suppose.
I just think nature and life will find a way, and that it is far too complex for any entity to think of or make themselves, even "god". God is a lazy term used when people don't know the real reason something happens, or cant explain something. God is an excuse for ignorance and we should always try to find the answers rather than say "god" and stop learning.
Well, you could always start a new religion about a god/entity that created the universe through the big bang, created life through some popular abiogenetic theory, and created man through the process of evolution.
God being responsible for evolution is the most logical conclusion one can draw. Just think about it. Nothing, and I mean nothing in the natural world is perfect EXCEPT evolution. How do I know evolution is perfect? Easy, every time someone brings up a flaw or questions how this or that could happen, there is always an explanation that can't be disputed. It happens on this board and many others. Evolutionists have the answer to everything. The fossil record is perfectly set up, the "tree" is absolutely perfect from single cell organism to human beings.
Also, all 10 million or so species have a perfect explanation as to how they came about and how they survived. Body parts all came into existence perfectly. I can go on and on. The only reason humans are here after almost 4 billion years is that God guided the system to perfection.
I know all the evolutionists on here agree with me that the process is perfect. I myself have made numerous inquiries as to the perceived problems with evolution but each and every time someone on this board has come up with an answer that evolution is beyond flaws or problems. You can't even question weather evolution is the only possible answer or you are called ignorant and stupid or delusional, etc.
Since evolution is perfect then God exists, since perfection can't be achieved except through God. If evolution has problems it has never been discussed by the people who believe in it on any message board.
Apparently you have had some bad experiences why people questioning your faith. It is funny that you are upset that you aren't allowed to question Evolution when you are actually upset because you believe that Evolution questions your faith.
Here are some problems that you seem to misunderstand:
A) Evolution is not perfect. It is the best explanation for how things work, but it can change.
B) If you feel that you are being given an answer that can't be disputed it is probably just coming from a jerk. You can try to dispute it all you want, but it is the Theists that say "God did it" and that can't be disputed. Evolution has a lot of explanations.
C) The tree of all organisms is not perfectly laid out, there is still research to find all of the tree.
D) It is delusional to suggest any alternative to Evolution that relies on a story of unknown origin without being able to observe anything from the story in the present. If you had a reasonable counter proposal to Evolution that used some kind of natural processes go for it.
Science usually finds data, draws conclusion, and presents them. After that the idea is thrown out if there is more data that makes it wrong. Evolution has suggestions for how to completely disprove it.
Creation presents a story, then Theists look for data to support the story. Then, only present evidence that supports the idea. If there is data that shows a problem with the story, Theists ignore it. For instance, Ken Ham has to throw out the entire study of historical science to even have a chance of questioning Evolution.
I am sorry that some Evolutionists make you feel bad about your faith.