Does anyone deny Evolution is a fact anymore?

Most don't. Even religion is starting to revolve around that evolution happened. Pirate700

Well, most of us are waking up to the fact that there's no real inherent conflict between the two. Some of us are a bit slower than others.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Most don't. Even religion is starting to revolve around that evolution happened. WtFDragon

Well, most of us are waking up to the fact that there's no real inherent conflict between the two. Some of us are a bit slower than others.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

I know a lot of religious nuts try to use this to deminish the validity of evolution. Still evolution is still the most logical explination for diversity of life, and is yet to be proven wrong. So I believe in evolution until somebody shows me something bette.r

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

I know a lot of religious nuts try to use this to deminish the validity of evolution. Still evolution is still the most logical explination for diversity of life, and is yet to be proven wrong. So I believe in evolution until somebody shows me something bette.r

jrhawk42

Its certainly a possibility. Could be wrong though... I mean a few centuries ago the greatest minds around thought the Earth was flat. Its possible people will laugh at us for believing the theory of Evolution in a century or two.

Still, I don't get the conflict between religion and evolution. South Park put it best: "Couldn't evolution just be how, and not why?"

[QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Most don't. Even religion is starting to revolve around that evolution happened. Pirate700

Well, most of us are waking up to the fact that there's no real inherent conflict between the two. Some of us are a bit slower than others.

I would probably argue that they can't be happy bed-fellows. If religious people want to take the bible as literal fact then Adam being made from dust doesn't lend itself well to the theory.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"][QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Most don't. Even religion is starting to revolve around that evolution happened. Robinho1873

Well, most of us are waking up to the fact that there's no real inherent conflict between the two. Some of us are a bit slower than others.

I would probably argue that they can't be happy bed-fellows. If religious people want to take the bible as literal fact then Adam being made from dust doesn't lend itself well to the theory.

yup, and you missed a huge thread about it a few days ago. http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26562192

[QUOTE="Robinho1873"][QUOTE="Pirate700"][QUOTE="WtFDragon"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Most don't. Even religion is starting to revolve around that evolution happened. Pirate700

Well, most of us are waking up to the fact that there's no real inherent conflict between the two. Some of us are a bit slower than others.

I would probably argue that they can't be happy bed-fellows. If religious people want to take the bible as literal fact then Adam being made from dust doesn't lend itself well to the theory.

Seems like a bit of a cop out doesn't it?

For example, you don't see evolutionists bending their theory in order to accomodate religion?

Ben Stein and Bill O'Reilly don't believe in Evolution, and as much as I respect the two... I can't take them seriously, to be honest.TenP

How can you respect Bill O'Reilly :??

[QUOTE="TenP"]Ben Stein and Bill O'Reilly don't believe in Evolution, and as much as I respect the two... I can't take them seriously, to be honest.Video_Game_King

How can you respect Bill O'Reilly :??

Because he speaks his honest opinion, but in that sense... I also respect Olbermann and Limbaugh(More disrespect than respect for him, tbh).

Sure there are things I don't like about him, like his tendancy to cry everytime someone makes fun of him. And his tendancy to tell everyone to shut up that disagrees with him. But in the end he's not as bad a guy that most people think he is.

[QUOTE="Video_Game_King"]

[QUOTE="TenP"]Ben Stein and Bill O'Reilly don't believe in Evolution, and as much as I respect the two... I can't take them seriously, to be honest.TenP

How can you respect Bill O'Reilly :??

Because he speaks his honest opinion, but in that sense... I also respect Olbermann and Limbaugh(More disrespect than respect for him, tbh).

Sure there are things I don't like about him, like his tendancy to cry everytime someone makes fun of him. And his tendancy to tell everyone to shut up that disagrees with him. But in the end he's not as bad a guy that most people think he is.

In that sense, then, he's an idiot :P:|.

I'm more open to it then I was before since I realized that Evolution and God can go hand in hand...battlefront23

They both can't in way, but if you are looking at in a point of view that God used it as one of his tools to make what we are and enviroments around us, then I said yes you can. Most of the time people don't do that in there though.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]I'm more open to it then I was before since I realized that Evolution and God can go hand in hand...xscrapzx

They both can't in way, but if you are looking at in a point of view that God used it as one of his tools to make what we are and enviroments around us, then I said yes you can. Most of the time people don't do that in there though.

I think you may have had a typo there. Its more that I believe God created the earth in seven days, but I don't really know how old the earth is nor do I care anymore.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]I'm more open to it then I was before since I realized that Evolution and God can go hand in hand...battlefront23

They both can't in way, but if you are looking at in a point of view that God used it as one of his tools to make what we are and enviroments around us, then I said yes you can. Most of the time people don't do that in there though.

I think you may have had a typo there. Its more that I believe God created the earth in seven days, but I don't really know how old the earth is nor do I care anymore.

Yeah, I don't see why they're mutually exclusive. Thestic evolution is far more feasible than creationism.

Also, for the record, 4.54 billion years.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]I'm more open to it then I was before since I realized that Evolution and God can go hand in hand...Funky_Llama

They both can't in way, but if you are looking at in a point of view that God used it as one of his tools to make what we are and enviroments around us, then I said yes you can. Most of the time people don't do that in there though.

I think you may have had a typo there. Its more that I believe God created the earth in seven days, but I don't really know how old the earth is nor do I care anymore.

Yeah, I don't see why they're mutually exclusive. Thestic evolution is far more feasible than creationism.

Also, for the record, 4.54 billion years.

They are both mutually exclusive because one is a theory on how living organisms have evolved around their enviroments. The other is an individual who has the power to create the universe. So I think that is why they can't be taken into the same account.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]I'm more open to it then I was before since I realized that Evolution and God can go hand in hand...xscrapzx

They both can't in way, but if you are looking at in a point of view that God used it as one of his tools to make what we are and enviroments around us, then I said yes you can. Most of the time people don't do that in there though.

I think you may have had a typo there. Its more that I believe God created the earth in seven days, but I don't really know how old the earth is nor do I care anymore.

Yeah, I don't see why they're mutually exclusive. Thestic evolution is far more feasible than creationism.

Also, for the record, 4.54 billion years.

They are both mutually exclusive because one is a theory on how living organisms have evolved around their enviroments. The other is an individual who has the power to create the universe. So I think that is why they can't be taken into the same account.

Why can't evolution be God's doing? I really don't see the problem.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]I'm more open to it then I was before since I realized that Evolution and God can go hand in hand...Funky_Llama

They both can't in way, but if you are looking at in a point of view that God used it as one of his tools to make what we are and enviroments around us, then I said yes you can. Most of the time people don't do that in there though.

I think you may have had a typo there. Its more that I believe God created the earth in seven days, but I don't really know how old the earth is nor do I care anymore.

Yeah, I don't see why they're mutually exclusive. Thestic evolution is far more feasible than creationism.

Also, for the record, 4.54 billion years.

They are both mutually exclusive because one is a theory on how living organisms have evolved around their enviroments. The other is an individual who has the power to create the universe. So I think that is why they can't be taken into the same account.

Why can't evolution be God's doing? I really don't see the problem.

I never said that God couldn't, but in fact I did state if you look at my posts that he could of used that as one of his tools. I'm just stating that when you are trying to disprove or prove a god you can't bring evolution into the subject because that is what 95% of all the topics brought on to this board have been about.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]I'm more open to it then I was before since I realized that Evolution and God can go hand in hand...Funky_Llama

They both can't in way, but if you are looking at in a point of view that God used it as one of his tools to make what we are and enviroments around us, then I said yes you can. Most of the time people don't do that in there though.

I think you may have had a typo there. Its more that I believe God created the earth in seven days, but I don't really know how old the earth is nor do I care anymore.

Yeah, I don't see why they're mutually exclusive. Thestic evolution is far more feasible than creationism.

Also, for the record, 4.54 billion years.

They are both mutually exclusive because one is a theory on how living organisms have evolved around their enviroments. The other is an individual who has the power to create the universe. So I think that is why they can't be taken into the same account.

Why can't evolution be God's doing? I really don't see the problem.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]I'm more open to it then I was before since I realized that Evolution and God can go hand in hand...Funky_Llama

They both can't in way, but if you are looking at in a point of view that God used it as one of his tools to make what we are and enviroments around us, then I said yes you can. Most of the time people don't do that in there though.

I think you may have had a typo there. Its more that I believe God created the earth in seven days, but I don't really know how old the earth is nor do I care anymore.

Yeah, I don't see why they're mutually exclusive. Thestic evolution is far more feasible than creationism.

Also, for the record, 4.54 billion years.

They are both mutually exclusive because one is a theory on how living organisms have evolved around their enviroments. The other is an individual who has the power to create the universe. So I think that is why they can't be taken into the same account.

Why can't evolution be God's doing? I really don't see the problem.

I can give you a number of reasons why... Two simple ones being that theistic evolution would require there to be death and suffering before the fall of man, and the second being that theistic evolution would require the days of creation to be in a different order... One would have to change a lot about what is said in Genesis to believe in theistic evolution...

I personally believe evolution to be true when speaking of species adapting to their environment. I do not believe all life arose from a single organism however.

I deny it's a fact. As stated, it's a theory, not a fact. There is no way to prove 100% that it is correct.

However, many people often think a theory is any random idea thrown out there, which is a hypothesis. Theories are hypotheses (sp?) that have been proven by loads of evidence, peer reviewed by countless people in the field, and generally fit as a good answer to the problem.

There's always the possibility that something comes up which forces us to change the theory.

I would probably argue that they can't be happy bed-fellows. If religious people want to take the bible as literal fact then Adam being made from dust doesn't lend itself well to the theory.

Robinho1873

Why not? Oh, sure, it's a rather poetic representation, but we do believe that life emerged out of "the dirt", or at least some kind of primordial soup full of proteins and nutrients that would have had to have been derived from the Earth by some means, right?

I can give you a number of reasons why... Two simple ones being that theistic evolution would require there to be death and suffering before the fall of man, and the second being that theistic evolution would require the days of creation to be in a different order... One would have to change a lot about what is said in Genesis to believe in theistic evolution...

I personally believe evolution to be true when speaking of species adapting to their environment. I do not believe all life arose from a single organism however.

mindstorm

Both of those problems are only genuine problems when assuming Biblical literalism.

Also, you do realise that the evidence saying that species adapt to their environment also says that they all arose from one initial organism? You're trying to have your cake and eat it.

Because Evolution is scientific. And no matter how people try god cannot be spoken about as science.Robinho1873

I don't see why not.

I deny it's a fact. As stated, it's a theory, not a fact. There is no way to prove 100% that it is correct.

However, many people often think a theory is any random idea thrown out there, which is a hypothesis. Theories are hypotheses (sp?) that have been proven by loads of evidence, peer reviewed by countless people in the field, and generally fit as a good answer to the problem.

There's always the possibility that something comes up which forces us to change the theory.

olion

There's no way to prove that anything is 100% correct, technically speaking.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I can give you a number of reasons why... Two simple ones being that theistic evolution would require there to be death and suffering before the fall of man, and the second being that theistic evolution would require the days of creation to be in a different order... One would have to change a lot about what is said in Genesis to believe in theistic evolution...

I personally believe evolution to be true when speaking of species adapting to their environment. I do not believe all life arose from a single organism however.

Funky_Llama

Both of those problems are only genuine problems when assuming Biblical literalism.

Also, you do realise that the evidence saying that species adapt to their environment also says that they all arose from one initial organism? You're trying to have your cake and eat it.

They are not quite the same thing as one can be observed and proven... the other is only assumed.

[QUOTE="Robinho1873"]

I would probably argue that they can't be happy bed-fellows. If religious people want to take the bible as literal fact then Adam being made from dust doesn't lend itself well to the theory.

WtFDragon

Why not? Oh, sure, it's a rather poetic representation, but we do believe that life emerged out of "the dirt", or at least some kind of primordial soup full of proteins and nutrients that would have had to have been derived from the Earth by some means, right?

Yes but the idea of Adam being created out of dirt does not make scientific sense whatever way you look at it, poetic or not. For one reason God is involved and no matter how much religion tries to twist it, God is not scientific fact. A ''creator''in itself cannot be accepted by the evolution theory.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I can give you a number of reasons why... Two simple ones being that theistic evolution would require there to be death and suffering before the fall of man, and the second being that theistic evolution would require the days of creation to be in a different order... One would have to change a lot about what is said in Genesis to believe in theistic evolution...

I personally believe evolution to be true when speaking of species adapting to their environment. I do not believe all life arose from a single organism however.

mindstorm

Both of those problems are only genuine problems when assuming Biblical literalism.

Also, you do realise that the evidence saying that species adapt to their environment also says that they all arose from one initial organism? You're trying to have your cake and eat it.

They are not quite the same thing as one can be observed and proven... the other is only assumed.

If you accept one, you must accept the other; they are exactly the same thing, just over a different timescale.

[QUOTE="Robinho1873"] Because Evolution is scientific. And no matter how people try god cannot be spoken about as science.Funky_Llama

I don't see why not.

Because God is supposed to be omnipotent. If God was to interfere in the Earth and leave SCIENTIFIC evidence that means that God has had to bend to the rules of Physics, because he has left an imprint in the Physical world. If he is indeed omnipotent then that means he would not have to interfere in a physical way but merely do something supernatural. The supernatural is not science.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="Robinho1873"] Because Evolution is scientific. And no matter how people try god cannot be spoken about as science.Robinho1873

I don't see why not.

Because God is supposed to be omnipotent. If God was to interfere in the Earth and leave SCIENTIFIC evidence that means that God has had to bend to the rules of Physics, because he has left an imprint in the Physical world. If he is indeed omnipotent then that means he would not have to interfere in a physical way but merely do something supernatural. The supernatural is not science.

But we're not dealing with whether theistic evolution is scientific, we're dealing with whether it's a contradiction.

[QUOTE="olion"]

I deny it's a fact. As stated, it's a theory, not a fact. There is no way to prove 100% that it is correct.

However, many people often think a theory is any random idea thrown out there, which is a hypothesis. Theories are hypotheses (sp?) that have been proven by loads of evidence, peer reviewed by countless people in the field, and generally fit as a good answer to the problem.

There's always the possibility that something comes up which forces us to change the theory.

Funky_Llama

There's no way to prove that anything is 100% correct, technically speaking.

Which is why they're always referred to as scientific theories. Even gravity is a theory. No matter how many times you drop an object, you cannot say with 100% confidence that the object will fall when released.

I'm just saying the TC is incorrect, since Evolution is in no way a fact.