As far as i can tell, the Theory of Evolution is BULLETPROOF. Come at me with your BEST counterarguments and counter evidence to Evolution!

@AkioTsukino


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]

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.

@Pikachu
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.

[media=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.


And nor does it for the majority of Christians.
But it presents one hell of a problem for creationists.


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.

@NortiusMaximus Man didn't invent plantains.

@SW-User No but he did turn the wild, barely edible, banana into an edible fruit.

@SW-User this is how bananas looked like before men started genetically engineering them...

@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.

@AkioTsukino


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.

@AkioTsukino Semmelweis? Like the doctor who tried desperately to get doctors to wash their hands? a most moving and tragic story.

@Dshhh
Indeed. Because the science of his time was wrong.

@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 germ theory

@Temporallube

For those who have ears to hear!

@SW-User

lol i'm not to worried about it. If someone is going to base their entire opinion off a graphic then there's not much i can do for them anyway.
It's just a symbol which represents an idea. It doesn't have to be literally accurate.

@Really

Stimulated discussion?!

@Really I'm not particularly conversant on the subject. Like I said, I usually avoid it like the plague.

@DocSavage https://gizmodo.com/kirk-camerons-crocoduck-came-back-to-bite-him-in-the-1637687282

@CorvusBlackthorne

I think of Spinosaurus more as a death heron, but sure lol

@DocSavage

lol i do love that. As if the discovery of a chimera like that would support evolution rather than refute it.

@ninjavu

lol indeed.
But that's more cultural than biological

@Pikachu Good point, but in the process we are "de-evolving", or devolving.

@Burnley123

And if that's where they left it i don't think i'd be interested in talking about it. But they like to claim the legitimacy of science to support their faith claims.

@Burnley123
Ah, I see. But did the warlock evolve?

@Vin53

Because he was feeling horny?

@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?

@StygianKohlrabi

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 evolution of life.

@StygianKohlrabi
Spiritual or physical?

@ViciDraco

Oh i haven't seen it

@CorvusBlackthorne

Cultish tribalism. An adaptive evolutionary trait even if not always productive for a wider population.

@CorvusBlackthorne easy. Fear is the mother of hate and anger.
it also shuts down rational thought
tho not natural selection, the evolutionary process here is driven by political victory
the one that scares the most people. wins

@LordShadowfire
touché.
evolution is a lie

@LordShadowfire thas crockupine..
the crocoduck, is a myth