As far as i can tell, the Theory of Evolution is BULLETPROOF. Come at me with your BEST counterarguments and counter evidence to Evolution!
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 5 more replies »
SW-User
@NortiusMaximus Man didn't invent plantains.
NortiusMaximus · M
@AkioTsukino
[quote]Evidence always has two sides. For and against[/quote]
Certainly. And that's why evolution is as certain a scientific theory as any we've yet devised.
the evidence for it is bulletproof and the evidence against it....is lacking.
Hence this thread lol
[quote]None of those are Bible teachings and neither is the firmament.
[quote][/quote][/quote]
Just a nod to the fact that most Christians these days agree with you that the Bible is not a science book and that it does not accurately describe the natural world.
[quote]Evidence always has two sides. For and against[/quote]
Certainly. And that's why evolution is as certain a scientific theory as any we've yet devised.
the evidence for it is bulletproof and the evidence against it....is lacking.
Hence this thread lol
[quote]None of those are Bible teachings and neither is the firmament.
[quote][/quote][/quote]
Just a nod to the fact that most Christians these days agree with you that the Bible is not a science book and that it does not accurately describe the natural world.
AkioTsukino · M
@Pikachu [quote]Just a nod to the fact that most Christians these days agree with you that the Bible is not a science book and that it does not accurately describe the natural world.
[/quote]
I mentioned science and the supernatural earlier today. Not so long ago whales and giant squid were thought to be supernatural. We know very little about the natural world and much of that is debatable. That's what science is supposed to do. Debate. The natural world itself is a term we use that suggest the obvious dependence upon observation. So, it is always correcting itself. The evolution I was taught in school isn't the evolution of today just as it isn't the evolution of tomorrow. Alchemy begat chemistry. Most of the perceived disharmony between modern science and the Bible is due to archaic science and philosophy. The firmament, YEC, the celestial phenomenon I mentioned earlier. Somewhere. The apostate pagan influence.
That the Bible isn't a science book presents no problem with me, as it didn't with Isaac Newton or I would imagine, Darwin.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOtGb8hKyWE]
[/quote]
I mentioned science and the supernatural earlier today. Not so long ago whales and giant squid were thought to be supernatural. We know very little about the natural world and much of that is debatable. That's what science is supposed to do. Debate. The natural world itself is a term we use that suggest the obvious dependence upon observation. So, it is always correcting itself. The evolution I was taught in school isn't the evolution of today just as it isn't the evolution of tomorrow. Alchemy begat chemistry. Most of the perceived disharmony between modern science and the Bible is due to archaic science and philosophy. The firmament, YEC, the celestial phenomenon I mentioned earlier. Somewhere. The apostate pagan influence.
That the Bible isn't a science book presents no problem with me, as it didn't with Isaac Newton or I would imagine, Darwin.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOtGb8hKyWE]
@AkioTsukino
Yes, science always makes provisional conclusions pending further evidence. It is self correcting.
That's why it's a more reliable way of knowing what is true about the world than religion which holds its dogma in spite of contradictory evidence.
We do indeed continue to learn more about just how evolution occurs but the fundamentals remain unchanged...a testament to their validity as a model for reality.
[quote]That the Bible isn't a science book presents no problem with me[/quote]
And nor does it for the majority of Christians.
But it presents one hell of a problem for creationists.
[quote]Dr. David Berlinksi Refutes Evolution[/quote]
lol my dude...he stumbles right out the gate when he says that the fossil record "does not sustain any kind of Darwinian predictions". Even within Darwin's lifetime evolution was used to make a prediction of what would be found in the fossil record: an animal exhibiting traits of both birds and reptiles. A specimen was found called Archaeopteryx. And has he ever heard of Tiktaalik? I mean, he may not have, i don't know when this interview was done but that was an animal that using evolution as a base, scientists predicted what features it would have, what habitat it would occupy and what geological layer it should be found in.
He's flat wrong. But since his PHD is in philosophy that is perhaps not surprising.
And his final point is that organisms don't change in their "fundamental nature"...well we've directly observed organisms transitioning from unicellular to multicellular...that's pretty damn fundamental.
I have a great many evidences in favour of evolution which i think you would find quite compelling (or at least have difficulty refuting) .
You mentioned earlier that you like to avoid such discussions but you also mentioned that you don't understand how people can accept evolution.
I suggest that those two things are not unrelated lol. If you're interested in getting a perspective on why people accept evolution then i'll be happy to share some of the evidences i consider compelling.
Yes, science always makes provisional conclusions pending further evidence. It is self correcting.
That's why it's a more reliable way of knowing what is true about the world than religion which holds its dogma in spite of contradictory evidence.
We do indeed continue to learn more about just how evolution occurs but the fundamentals remain unchanged...a testament to their validity as a model for reality.
[quote]That the Bible isn't a science book presents no problem with me[/quote]
And nor does it for the majority of Christians.
But it presents one hell of a problem for creationists.
[quote]Dr. David Berlinksi Refutes Evolution[/quote]
lol my dude...he stumbles right out the gate when he says that the fossil record "does not sustain any kind of Darwinian predictions". Even within Darwin's lifetime evolution was used to make a prediction of what would be found in the fossil record: an animal exhibiting traits of both birds and reptiles. A specimen was found called Archaeopteryx. And has he ever heard of Tiktaalik? I mean, he may not have, i don't know when this interview was done but that was an animal that using evolution as a base, scientists predicted what features it would have, what habitat it would occupy and what geological layer it should be found in.
He's flat wrong. But since his PHD is in philosophy that is perhaps not surprising.
And his final point is that organisms don't change in their "fundamental nature"...well we've directly observed organisms transitioning from unicellular to multicellular...that's pretty damn fundamental.
I have a great many evidences in favour of evolution which i think you would find quite compelling (or at least have difficulty refuting) .
You mentioned earlier that you like to avoid such discussions but you also mentioned that you don't understand how people can accept evolution.
I suggest that those two things are not unrelated lol. If you're interested in getting a perspective on why people accept evolution then i'll be happy to share some of the evidences i consider compelling.
Dshhh · M
@AkioTsukino Semmelweis? Like the doctor who tried desperately to get doctors to wash their hands? a most moving and tragic story.
AkioTsukino · M
@Dshhh [quote]Semmelweis? Like the doctor who tried desperately to get doctors to wash their hands? a most moving and tragic story.[/quote]
Indeed. Because the science of his time was wrong.
Indeed. Because the science of his time was wrong.
Dshhh · M
@AkioTsukino my point exactly, DR S was a good scientist, observing recording and sharing his information.
the "doctors" of his time were far less open to change,
yes science itself undergoes Evolution. the ideas f doctor S are now accepted at fact. and yet they still say [i]germ theory[/i]
the "doctors" of his time were far less open to change,
yes science itself undergoes Evolution. the ideas f doctor S are now accepted at fact. and yet they still say [i]germ theory[/i]
AkioTsukino · M
Well, there's two arguments I avoid like the plague. Evolution and the Trinity. They are both rooted in ancient Greek philosophy and both fairly irrelevant from my specific interest which is the Bible. Evolution is theoretical and the Trinity is theological. Theology and science isn't necessarily commensurate with the Biblical. Science is observation; the Bible says that dogs come from dogs, apples from apples. Is that observable? Is it what we observe? Apes come from apes. Are we apes? It's a matter of interpretation. That's what theology and the theoretical is.
AkioTsukino · M
@Pikachu That's one take on it I suppose. As valid as any other. I don't have much contact with Christians. That relationship hasn't been entirely successful in the past.
As for science, for me personally, even as an unbeliever I perceived it as being just another religious organization, with all of the same weaknesses and pitfalls. Just another flawed endeavor of man, but, like organized religion, I have nothing against it until it starts to inculcate itself upon me and my thinking. Present me with an idea? That's great. I love it. Insist I accept, adopt, practice or implement it in my consciousness? Especially without question? Nah. Don't do that.
So! If the Christians are doing that they are more foolish than even I imagined. If science came out tomorrow saying that they had discovered the existence of God, I wouldn't be at all impressed. In fact, if I were to examine them, I would expect their conclusions to be deeply flawed.
But that's just me.
As for science, for me personally, even as an unbeliever I perceived it as being just another religious organization, with all of the same weaknesses and pitfalls. Just another flawed endeavor of man, but, like organized religion, I have nothing against it until it starts to inculcate itself upon me and my thinking. Present me with an idea? That's great. I love it. Insist I accept, adopt, practice or implement it in my consciousness? Especially without question? Nah. Don't do that.
So! If the Christians are doing that they are more foolish than even I imagined. If science came out tomorrow saying that they had discovered the existence of God, I wouldn't be at all impressed. In fact, if I were to examine them, I would expect their conclusions to be deeply flawed.
But that's just me.
@AkioTsukino
[quote]As for science, for me personally, even as an unbeliever I perceived it as being just another religious organization[/quote]
Gotta disagree there. While people can certainly accept uncritically and without understanding the conclusions of science, science as a tool is the opposite of religion.
Religion is based on faith, intuition and believing with conviction even that which cannot be shown or demonstrated.
Science demands evidence, reproducibility and predictive power. That's why even though humans become dogmatic in the conclusions they have reached through the scientific method, the method continues inexorably to expand and change our understanding about what is true.
That's why it is an alluring weapon to creationists even though it ultimately proves to be their ruin.
It's a powerful tool which (so far) inevitably hones in on fact no matter what someone's beliefs are.
[quote]As for science, for me personally, even as an unbeliever I perceived it as being just another religious organization[/quote]
Gotta disagree there. While people can certainly accept uncritically and without understanding the conclusions of science, science as a tool is the opposite of religion.
Religion is based on faith, intuition and believing with conviction even that which cannot be shown or demonstrated.
Science demands evidence, reproducibility and predictive power. That's why even though humans become dogmatic in the conclusions they have reached through the scientific method, the method continues inexorably to expand and change our understanding about what is true.
That's why it is an alluring weapon to creationists even though it ultimately proves to be their ruin.
It's a powerful tool which (so far) inevitably hones in on fact no matter what someone's beliefs are.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Temporallube · M
AkioTsukino · M
@Really I'm not particularly conversant on the subject. Like I said, I usually avoid it like the plague.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
It's not about proof, it's about belief.
I believe that a giant purple unicorn warlock made the world by burping.
I believe that a giant purple unicorn warlock made the world by burping.
AkioTsukino · M
@Burnley123 [quote]I believe that a giant purple unicorn warlock made the world by burping.[/quote]
Ah, I see. But did the warlock evolve?
Ah, I see. But did the warlock evolve?
DocSavage · M
You really gonna argue this with Kirk Cammeron and Ray Comfort ?
Explain the continuing popularity of Donald Trump.
ninjavu · 51-55, M
Facebook. Smartphones. "Easy." TV. Hollywood. Shall I keep going?
Vin53 · M
Why would a warlock make himself into a unicorn?
lumberjackslam · 41-45, M
ok wise guy. where did the very first living thing come into being, in your own words.
lumberjackslam · 41-45, M
@Pikachu I can accept that you aren't discussing origin. But still.... are you saying that the theory of evolution is perfect and beyond criticism?
@lumberjackslam
No i think there are indeed gaps in our understanding of exactly how evolution works.
But that organisms share common ancestry and that populations diversify over time is beyond question just as much as the theory of gravitation or the germ theory of disease.
That's why i made this thread. There is still more to learn about evolution but i hope you can now see that the ultimate origins of life do not negatively impact the evidence for the [i]evolution[/i] of life.
No i think there are indeed gaps in our understanding of exactly how evolution works.
But that organisms share common ancestry and that populations diversify over time is beyond question just as much as the theory of gravitation or the germ theory of disease.
That's why i made this thread. There is still more to learn about evolution but i hope you can now see that the ultimate origins of life do not negatively impact the evidence for the [i]evolution[/i] of life.
AkioTsukino · M
@lumberjackslam [quote]ok wise guy. where did the very first living thing come into being, in your own words.[/quote]
Spiritual or physical?
Spiritual or physical?
ViciDraco · 36-40, M
Not wanting to jump into the other thread on it?
LordShadowfire · M
So where's the crocoduck?
Dshhh · M
@LordShadowfire thas crockupine..
the crocoduck, is a myth
the crocoduck, is a myth