British government won't fund schools that teach creationism

This conversation is never going to advance past this point until you realize that this has nothing to do with belief or, least of all, faith.

Apart from the fact it isn't.

You might like to know that England (though not Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland) still has an established state church, that there are Anglican bishops sitting in the upper house of Parliament, that the state financially supports schools affiliated with religious institutions in parts of the UK, and that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are appointed by the head of state following advice from the government.
Although the Christians in our country aren't complete psychopaths and that two of the three main party leaders are atheist.

I find it hypocritical to demand hard evidence to prove God's existence, yet are hostile to GeneralofCarthage for wanting facts before accepting a truth.

He got the facts. Just search Evolution!!!

Truth? No one here has used the word truth but you, because we understand the difference between a truth and a scientific theory.

Erm, ok, maybe I should've chosen my words better. Fair enough.
Now why don't you respond the actual idea of the post?

No, he has pieces of evidence that might point towards something like Evolution. The same way someone might point to things like the Second Siege of Antioch or the many factual statements proven true from the Bible first (think, air has weight and there are "land formations" on the ocean floor). Sure it might lead you to believe there is a God, but it does not prove it.

The nonsensical bickering between religious fundamentalists and irrationally militant atheists are of no concern to someone well versed in terms and concepts.

That sounds like an event answer in Darkest Hour.

Except the proof of the scientific theory of Evolution is so overwhelming and we can even see it going on today that very little in the theory could/will be changed if new data is provided. The theory is so well researched and documented that it's in reality bulletproof.

Helps that my jacket gives me 2 Charisma.

It's still a theory precisely because it isn't bulletproof. How exactly did the human brain form? A huge block in your head that sucked up tons of nutrients and didn't do much wouldn't exactly be a vital trait of humanity back in Cave Man times, as I like to call them.

And why is it next to impossible to replicate the same accidents that we know happened in history?

Anyway, I don't want to fight the Theory of Evolution, because there's no much I can call upon. Nevertheless, my point still stands that to believe the theory requires a degree of faith and to discredit another faith reliant idea is simple hypocrisy.

Gravity is still a theory as well. Are you going to say gravity is still a theory because they can't prove it as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

Gravity is a Law. More accurately, it is Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Because without it we wouldn't be able to think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence

1. It happended over millions of years.
2. We have replicated some of the "accidents"(if I get what you're trying to say right)
3. Mutations are notoriously unreliable/unstable/unpredictable. Most mutation is a bad thing, but occationaly it hits the sweet spot.

And there is tons of evidence I can call upon. You know you're going to lose that argument.
Evolution doesn't require faith in the same way that Creationism does.

Lots of protein intake if I'm not mistaken.

You kidding? To this day it's the only thing we have going for us.

One is static. It does not change nor can it be disproven. The other is divergent. It changes over time, even to the point that it can be discarded in favor of new information.
That is the difference between religious faith and scientific theory.

It's because saying there's a God is a claim. For most people a claim means someone has the evidence to back it up. Such is the case with evolution. The claim is that after life formed (however that happens doesn't matter), it gradually changed into the forms we see today. There's plenty of evidence that backs up that claim. Now, making a claim that would explain a lot of things that happen or have happened without any evidence for it is not science, thus teaching this in a science class is ridiculous.
Not to mention demanding evidence for a virtually proven scientific theory while basing ones own beliefs on stories that are so full of holes and have no evidence to back it up whatsoever is being hypocritical as well.

Humans are weak and frail creatures. In an environment where food is scarce and dangerous predators lurk around, you need to be either stronger, faster or smarter. Man became smarter. Also, the development of walking on two legs, and the gaining of thumbs were to massive turning points in early human development, allowing for more complex actions like the creation of tools, the usage of which required a lot more intelligence, and thus larger brains. Big brains were a necessity for mankind to survive.

Still, I understand that this is just an example, and my explanation of it is probably not entirely true.

We don't need complex thoughts to survive. We could have brains the equivalent of a chimp and be well enough.

That's a term used for species development. But the breeding of traits can be easily done in a few generations. Even lack luster breeders can do it. And no, I'm not talking about the changing of say, apes to man.

Yes, and many others have failed. If you were wholly right, wouldn't they all succeed?

Yes, and still in a group large enough that unreliability and instability can be scaled down. Even still, the mutation should be highly similar if not the same.

I don't plan on trying to disprove Evolution, I plan on discrediting it.

Yes, but have GeneralofCarthage and I advocated Creationism, or merely gone against Evolution?

But we wouldn't be able to completely dominate the world like we do it today. Sure we could be chimps, but this is about the survival of the fittest.(fittest for the environment)

I'm not getting your point. We're doing this constantly...

Because of what I said below. In most cases it's a bad idea to mutate.

They did this...

Which countless people, some more capable than you, have tried.

Potato potato...

Again, there is "evidence" for the existence of God. And again I reference the Second Siege of Antioch and the several facts in the Bible which later proved to be true.

I do not detest that Evolution is probably incredibly close to fact.

I do not advocate teaching Creationism in Science Class, but why only teach one side in the form of Evolution? It would be like trying to teach Dark Matter and presenting only one theory as fact. Every side should have its views presented until one can, without a doubt, be proven or at the very least until no one of any size disagrees.

True.

We used to be more physically adept. And in fact, it is the most physically capable, not intellectually capable, who have the most sex. Not only that, but the physically capable weren't dying off. They were surviving better, in fact.

It would seem you are very reasonable.

Survival of the fittest would incline us to be stronger, not smarter. And the goal of being the top of the food chain through complex breeding and raising of traits that would be considered feeble (weakness physically and strength mentally) would not be done as second nature. There is another factor that we have not added.

My point is that it doesn't take millions of years to test evolution, otherwise you'd have no evidence at all.

Yes, which is why man probably wouldn't randomly mutate into feebleness and intelligence.

And failed a lot.

Not on the forum.

Not really. Sure as a sum, it would make sense I would believe in creationism, but I don't. I believe in Evolution. I'm debating against it for the sake of GeneralofCarthage, really.

I personally suspect the Bible being more of a witness' account combined with old folk stories than truly the Word of God. The inconsistencies, similarities with earlier Greek and Roman myths and scientific explanations for "wonders" lead me to believe it's just a compilation of stories bundled together and made more fun to read for people. Most "evidence" for God either has a natural explanation or has to do with an experience of a single human being whose mind has played tricks on him.

Okay, that's cool, I guess.

Because evolution seems to be the only scientific theory with evidence, which is very strong. Dark Matter is a lot more complex subject, and we know way less about it so that there are multiple theories.

Again, early humans invented tools to search for food more effectively in areas where food was scarce. Somehow standing up straight also allowed for the human brain to develop further and further (I don't know the specifics). Mankind's enemies were all stronger and faster, the only way for humans to survive is to get smarter, and develop complex means of using their bodies, like thumbs and facial expressions. All those things made for an enlarged brain. Physically keeping up with the predators of the time was impossible for mankind, but in a single group, it's not entirely illogical that the strongest would survive, as their offspring would be strong and have a higher chance of survival as well. This is how it had worked for millions of years.

I like to think of myself as someone with quite a bit of self knowledge, and thus I don't have a problem with making concessions in discussions when I know I'm wrong. I'm no expert on evolution, but I have read articles and watched shows of which I remember parts. However, if I'm not entirely sure that what I say is correct, I never say it is.

Survival of the fittest means the most fit survive, not directly the strongest. While in a group of the same species, the more physically strong would be the most likely to survive, but in the grand scheme of things, early man stood no chance against its competitors.

Don't forget human evolution began far before the Ice Age, where there were way more forests where our ancestors could live and thrive. When the Ice Age approached and more open areas were common, man had to adapt to these areas and its predators and prey.

Weapons were the perfect means for early man to defend themselves and hunt for larger prey, which became more scarce when the climate became colder. Hunting large prey meant that man needed to form hunting parties and develop more complex means of communication to get food and survive.

Really, when you think about it, development like this is absolutely amazing, and even though I might not be right on everything, I do think I'm on the right track with several of these ideas.