<p>Justinian... I replicated evolution in a 10th grade biology classroom. If you think it's impossible to replicate evolution in a laboratory... haha.</p>
<p>Those who are honestly trying to debate, please excuse this digression.</p>
<p>Justinian, you are not a student at Harvard. Your former posts indicate that you are currently applying to UVA and James Madison, possibly among others. Please take it off your profile.</p>
<p>s'vrone, he wants his institution to add credibility to his posts, since they are usually so immature/ludicrous.</p>
<p>Ok but yes, evolution CAN be demonstrated. PorSK, I did it in a NINTH grade biology classroom. Ha! Take that! It was some strain of bacteria that accidentally got mutated by heat selection and then they outcompeted the original strain when we mixed them so everything went wrong in our experiment.</p>
<p>I believe in God and other gods and goddesses, I just disagree with the Bible, and the religious teachings. :/</p>
<p>
[quote]
Observation-no one was ever there to witness evolution or to observe it
[/quote]
Nobody was there to observe "god's" creation of the universe either....nobody was there to witness the existence of dinosaurs or an ice age. Does that mean there is no evidence that they existed? No...we have formulated credible theories based on facts. Likewise, with evolution, perhaps no categorically correct theory that accounts for all anomalies is correct, but the overarching idea is consistent with observation. </p>
<p>Allow me to present an analogy. Our concept of the atom is not perfect, even to this day. There are disputes between whether the orbitals are mass based or based on probability densities (read the works of Milo Wolff and Ewin Schrodinger). Different models have been adaped and discarded over time, but the significance is that with each model our understanding of the atom (and its properties) grows. If Schrodinger descredited all of Bohr's work because of an anomaly (its inapplicability to any atom other than hydrogen), he would have been unable to build on it and increase the scientific understanding. You cannot discredit the entire idea based on the flaws of an inductive model. It is also noteworthy to add that no such "flaws" exist in Darwin's model of evolution, but you seem to be too tough on science. Science does not always involve deductive processes...much of our knowledge is inductive. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Hypothesis- Well, I guess evolutionist can hypothesize
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is noteworthy to point out that christianity makes the biggest hypothesis of all ideas pending rejection: the existence of god. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But science does not answer all questions.
[/quote]
Perhaps not at the current level, but whenever science has been contradicted by other ideas (in actual occurence) the scientific explanation always...i can say ALWAYS...has been the one observed. An example is the sinking of ships in the bermuda triangle. People thought it may have been a curse or whatnot till they found that there was irregular electromagnetic activity in the area. Perhaps humans have not developed science to an advanced enough level (science is a work in progress), but there is always a scientific explanation to everything; i challenge anyone to think of an actual occurence (contradicted by a nonscientific ideology) that cannot be scientifically explained. The reason christianity contradicts science is that it is not based on manifest occurence. In essence, it is based on belief that, more likely than not, did not occur. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Although it(evolution) has never has been disproved, it surely has never been proven.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>well, neither has the divinity of the bible nor the existence of god. You surely can't accept the nonproven idea of god while not accepting the not disproven idea of evolution. That would be an unbalanced value criterion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
concrete laws as heliocentrism and gravity which is absolutely ludicrous
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, you place too much of a burden on the sciences. Anomalies even to the law of universal gravitation have been found in subatomic particles...newtonian mechanics does not always hold on the atomic scale. Does this mean we throw out all of newton's stuff? No, we build upon it. This is similar to the idea of evolution...though it has not been categorically proven, there is nothing attacking its very paradigm...it still holds based on occurence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can provide sufficient evidence, but nothing can be proven. And in all the cases, sufficient evidence has been found.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^^ well stated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
s'vrone, he wants his institution to add credibility to his posts, since they are usually so immature/ludicrous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Though I ardently disagree with Justinian's philosophy, I do admire his respectful attitude towards his opposition. I would deem those personal attacks as immature, not fitting in a discussion of metaphysics. Stick to the points, not the person making them.</p>
<p>Well, moving along, demanding replicable laboratory experiments is a departure from the reality of science anyway. Much of science is conducted outside the laboratory in natural settings. A test of a hypothesis occurs when there is an observation that may agree or disagree with predictions of the hypothesis, and by that definition, there have been plenty tests of common descent in nature. We don't even need to observe the process of evolution itself in order to verify common descent. As you'd expect, the process of common descent has left its traces on the world. If I view Nike shoeprints in the ground, I can incur that a human must have been walking there.</p>
<p>I'm sorry trancestorm, I just was a little annoyed that he responds selectively to the things we bring up.</p>
<p>I realize suddenly that the original question was, "How many of you believe in God?" The correct answer the that question is 436 of us. I hope this ends discussion.</p>
<p>Out of how many? Which ones are indecided? Not everybody believes in the same one so what about different Gods? That was a little god-centric. And yes I hope this discussion dies too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm sorry trancestorm, I just was a little annoyed that he responds selectively to the things we bring up.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha its fine..If you look back about 30 pages, you will see that I said some pretty mean things myself...i understand the passion that accompanies debating sensitive issues. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I realize suddenly that the original question was, "How many of you believe in God?" The correct answer the that question is 436 of us. I hope this ends discussion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>what a party pooper.</p>
<p>There used to be many more theists posting on this thread...</p>
<p>what would the theist think of deism...How do we know (supposing i assume god exists) that god did not create the universe and then commit suicide (never to interfere with man again). theists bring up that the fundamental starting point of evolution is some fundamental matter (created by god). This only means that perhaps, a creator created life AT ONE TIME. How does that prove anything of the existence of god today? I am certain that there have been no divine miracles that were so common in the days of the old testament anytime recently...perhaps god is on vacation.</p>
<p>Or perhaps God has stopped sending messengers/miracles for a reason. Think about it. How practical would it be in today's chaotic world? It's hard enough to convince people of anything (this thread being an example). Do you honestly believe people would not be skeptical about a miracle, no matter how clear it was?</p>
<p>Many people in this world persist in their ways despite every indication that they are wrong, or that they need to change. Skepticism is the norm. Miracles would not be very practical in modern society. Neither would prophets or messengers. Most people would not believe them.</p>
<p>it'd be met with skepticism, but if it's a true miracle then it would be proven as such. And believe me, I wish I knew someone who could turn water into wine, it would make friday and saturday nights so much easier.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most people would not believe them.
[/quote]
if I saw a burning bush that talked to me and told me it was god, i would become a believer...perhaps even a preacher :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
if I saw a burning bush that talked to me and told me it was god, i would become a believer...perhaps even a preacher
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd get a CAT scan or something to that effect.</p>
<p>Tetrahedron proves that even if God were to perform a miracle right in front of us, there would still be people who would be skeptical and unbelieving.</p>
<p>Read Hume's Dialogue concerning natural religion. There is some interesting stuff on miracles and basing a religion off of that.</p>
<p>there is a certain point at which even Tetrahedron would be a believer...that is besides the point...nothign has or ever will happen</p>
<p>
[quote]
Tetrahedron proves that even if God were to perform a miracle right in front of us, there would still be people who would be skeptical and unbelieving.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, if the CAT scan showed I was fine, then I'd be a believer.</p>
<p>To be honest, I would definitiely believe in a god if they provided any kind of compelling evidence of their existence. Old documents, promises of miracles, and brainwashing just don't cut it.</p>