By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Prove that evolution is what actually happened.

Tagged games:

Runa216 said:
padib said:
Runa216 said:
I just want to interject here and say you're all understanding Occam's Razor wrong. "The simplest solution is the best" is NOT Occam's razor, that's just lazy. No, the Razor is about making as few assumptions as possible.

God creating everything is simpler to grasp and to understand, but makes many grand assumptions (namely, that God exists, that God cares about us, and that God is omnipotent)

The Big Bang (or whatever other geneis theory you have) makes fewer assumptions because almost all aspects of the theory has scientific backing, so it's not about assumptions, it's about following the evidence.

Occam's Razor is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Educate yourself before looking like a tool. Wikipedia (and Google) are both right at your fingertips.

Corrected.

Assumption count = 1.

No..no no no freaking no.  Just because I only CHOSE to list three doesn't mean there are only three assumptions to make.  That, and all of those assumptions are needed.  ASSUMING god exists, he'd still have to care enough to make the world.  Simply existing would not automatically lead to him creating us.  Assuming he existed and cared enough, he'd still have to prove omnipotent to create the universe, since omnipotence means "all powerful".  to create a universe he'd need to be as powerful if not more than the entire universe. Hence all three are required to assume that God created everything. 


God does not need to care about us. For theistic religions, this is true. However, deism doesn't require God to care about us. Although there are probably different types of deism, under the more common forms, God is just required to create the universe (more of a first-cause). God's intentions, love, goodness are irrelevant to deists. In your response, you changed the assumption to caring about the world, which is different from saying he cares about us. Once again, this statement would be true for theistic conceptions of God but would hardly be necessary for a deistic conception of God.

Now, omnipotence and existence are assumptions I would make although I could see a case being made that God does not need to be omnipotent, just very very powerful.



Around the Network

GOD jsut invented time

now to make changes relevant to people,something had to change

evolution didn't itself occur but was relevant to what we did to ourselves like what we ate,where we lived ,etc

also if you look back at time recently then you would understand its a gradual change which we wouldn't even take into concern

but is you look at long term,only then we would understand what evolution means like 1000's of years



GameOver22 said:
Runa216 said:
padib said:
Runa216 said:
I just want to interject here and say you're all understanding Occam's Razor wrong. "The simplest solution is the best" is NOT Occam's razor, that's just lazy. No, the Razor is about making as few assumptions as possible.

God creating everything is simpler to grasp and to understand, but makes many grand assumptions (namely, that God exists, that God cares about us, and that God is omnipotent)

The Big Bang (or whatever other geneis theory you have) makes fewer assumptions because almost all aspects of the theory has scientific backing, so it's not about assumptions, it's about following the evidence.

Occam's Razor is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Educate yourself before looking like a tool. Wikipedia (and Google) are both right at your fingertips.

Corrected.

Assumption count = 1.

No..no no no freaking no.  Just because I only CHOSE to list three doesn't mean there are only three assumptions to make.  That, and all of those assumptions are needed.  ASSUMING god exists, he'd still have to care enough to make the world.  Simply existing would not automatically lead to him creating us.  Assuming he existed and cared enough, he'd still have to prove omnipotent to create the universe, since omnipotence means "all powerful".  to create a universe he'd need to be as powerful if not more than the entire universe. Hence all three are required to assume that God created everything. 


God does not need to care about us. For theistic religions, this is true. However, deism doesn't require God to care about us. Although there are probably different types of deism, under the more common forms, God is just required to create the universe (more of a first-cause). God's intentions, love, goodness are irrelevant to deists. In your response, you changed the assumption to caring about the world, which is different from saying he cares about us. Once again, this statement would be true for theistic conceptions of God but would hardly be necessary for a deistic conception of God.

Now, omnipotence and existence are assumptions I would make although I could see a case being made that God does not need to be omnipotent, just very very powerful.

I'm pretty sure that God would just be lazy and not do anything with his omnipotence. Given that we cannot assume that he felt like creating, unless it's understood that he was simply driven to do it. In which case, God would be acting more like science than life. Choice differentiates life and non-life. So, we have to assume that he chose to create, unless God is not alive.

For example, you chose to interpret "care" as "have love and tenderness for", where the writer chose to mean "feel like".



theprof00 said:
GameOver22 said:
Runa216 said:
padib said:
Runa216 said:
I just want to interject here and say you're all understanding Occam's Razor wrong. "The simplest solution is the best" is NOT Occam's razor, that's just lazy. No, the Razor is about making as few assumptions as possible.

God creating everything is simpler to grasp and to understand, but makes many grand assumptions (namely, that God exists, that God cares about us, and that God is omnipotent)

The Big Bang (or whatever other geneis theory you have) makes fewer assumptions because almost all aspects of the theory has scientific backing, so it's not about assumptions, it's about following the evidence.

Occam's Razor is a principle that generally recommends, when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Educate yourself before looking like a tool. Wikipedia (and Google) are both right at your fingertips.

Corrected.

Assumption count = 1.

No..no no no freaking no.  Just because I only CHOSE to list three doesn't mean there are only three assumptions to make.  That, and all of those assumptions are needed.  ASSUMING god exists, he'd still have to care enough to make the world.  Simply existing would not automatically lead to him creating us.  Assuming he existed and cared enough, he'd still have to prove omnipotent to create the universe, since omnipotence means "all powerful".  to create a universe he'd need to be as powerful if not more than the entire universe. Hence all three are required to assume that God created everything. 


God does not need to care about us. For theistic religions, this is true. However, deism doesn't require God to care about us. Although there are probably different types of deism, under the more common forms, God is just required to create the universe (more of a first-cause). God's intentions, love, goodness are irrelevant to deists. In your response, you changed the assumption to caring about the world, which is different from saying he cares about us. Once again, this statement would be true for theistic conceptions of God but would hardly be necessary for a deistic conception of God.

Now, omnipotence and existence are assumptions I would make although I could see a case being made that God does not need to be omnipotent, just very very powerful.

I'm pretty sure that God would just be lazy and not do anything with his omnipotence. Given that we cannot assume that he felt like creating, unless it's understood that he was simply driven to do it. In which case, God would be acting more like science than life. Choice differentiates life and non-life. So, we have to assume that he chose to create, unless God is not alive.

For example, you chose to interpret "care" as "have love and tenderness for", where the writer chose to mean "feel like".


True, good point.



Really? Species evolve over 1000s of years in order to adapt to a constantly changing environment. This should be common sense.. Do you really believe that all species were exactly how they are now 1000s, or hell, MILLIONS of years ago? An offspring develops a deformity that gives them an edge over their competition, thus more with these genes are created and the originals die off. Simple as that..



Around the Network
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
First off, very few religious people deny evolution by now. 2nd, evolution does in no way disprove existence of God by the slightest. I think this is a flamebait/troll thread to be honest

This is actually not true. At least, the overwhelming majority of people part of Abrahamic religions do not believe in evolution. Don't know about the Asian religions.


It is true. All the religious people i know, both in Serbia and Germany, none of them deny evolution, rather they believe its process and system was designed/created by God. The ones that deny it are some old un progressive fundamentalists mostly living in middle west and middle south USA.

 

http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/what-do-christians-really-believe-evolution



Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
First off, very few religious people deny evolution by now. 2nd, evolution does in no way disprove existence of God by the slightest. I think this is a flamebait/troll thread to be honest

This is actually not true. At least, the overwhelming majority of people part of Abrahamic religions do not believe in evolution. Don't know about the Asian religions.


It is true. All the religious people i know, both in Serbia and Germany, none of them deny evolution, rather they believe its process and system was designed/created by God. The ones that deny it are some old un progressive fundamentalists mostly living in middle west and middle south USA.

 

http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/what-do-christians-really-believe-evolution

In Romania,. the overwhelming majority of people don't belive in evolution. And an user on here posted some statistics on another topic where it showed that the majority of Christians worldwide don't believe in evolution. Of the people following Abrahamic religions, only Jews believe in evolution in large numbers (75%).



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
First off, very few religious people deny evolution by now. 2nd, evolution does in no way disprove existence of God by the slightest. I think this is a flamebait/troll thread to be honest

This is actually not true. At least, the overwhelming majority of people part of Abrahamic religions do not believe in evolution. Don't know about the Asian religions.


It is true. All the religious people i know, both in Serbia and Germany, none of them deny evolution, rather they believe its process and system was designed/created by God. The ones that deny it are some old un progressive fundamentalists mostly living in middle west and middle south USA.

 

http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/what-do-christians-really-believe-evolution

In Romania,. the overwhelming majority of people don't belive in evolution. And an user on here posted some statistics on another topic where it showed that the majority of Christians worldwide don't believe in evolution. Of the people following Abrahamic religions, only Jews believe in evolution in large numbers (75%).


maybe you need better education than, i still doubt that's true tho. most of western christians dont deny evolution, i will post more statistics tomorrow



I can't prove a theory for you.



e=mc^2

Gaming on: PS4 Pro, Switch, SNES Mini, Wii U, PC (i5-7400, GTX 1060)

My family is very religious. I believe the old testament is purely mythology mixed in with fake history. I accept that Judaism is not 5000 years old like many seem to think it is, it is actually about 2450 years old, the Hebrew people had been around longer, but a religion that resembled Judaism was not around before monotheism was adopted from the Persian Zoroastrians.

Christianity uses Judaism as a source because it was taught first to Jewish people. Although it is clear that the teachings of Jesus are taken from the Greek Mysteries, and are not Jewish in origin. This was an era where the school of Hellenized Judaism was popular, Jewish leaders like Philo of Alexandria were initiates in the Mysteries. In fact, Paul was from Tarsus, the center of the Mysteries of Mithras from 390 BC until the 1st century AD when it was introduced to Rome; if Paul himself wasn't an initiate, he would still, at least, be very familiar with the tradition of the Mystery religion. I actually feel it is a shame that Christianity has lot of that old Testament stuff dragged into it, because a lot of it is evil, and much more of it is just plain silly - and of the sort of superstitious material that no rational thinking human being would believe.

My family is Christian, but we don't acknowledge Yahovah of the old testament as being the true God. Rather we see him as a deceiver, a false God; the imperfect son of Sophia. Jesus and Sophia are part of the Pleroma, the totality of God. Sophia manifested herself in the world as being the souls of humanity, and Jesus manifested himself as the logus - the enlightening word sent to save the souls of humanity, and bring us back to the totality of the true God. If you look at Yahovah in the bible, he is a God jealous of other Gods, he is warlike, and has ridiculous rules that people believed they should follow - obviously Jesus in the bible was against this.

Anyway, there is nothing in the new testament, or true Christian belief that opposes evolution. It is is a fact that organisms adapt and evolve, it is only rational to accept that evolution occurs. Those people who refuse to accept it because they believe the old testament, are believing mythology over rational thought. Christianity is about enlightenment, about love. Christianity is not about declaring that evolution is wrong, yelling at gay people, supporting political reforms that allow the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer, and supporting warfare - all of that sort of stuff is very much opposed by the bible - if you believe this stuff, you are not a true Christian, but just a confused fan.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.