As far as i can tell, the Theory of Evolution is BULLETPROOF. Come at me with your BEST counterarguments and counter evidence to Evolution!
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
AkioTsukino · M
@Dshhh Oh, I get it! This science is right because this science book says it is.
Dshhh · M
@AkioTsukino the two are not interchangeable.
religion tends to be static, maintaining continuity, to continue the social construct
science, continually has to re examine it's position, and adapt it's models to better match observed reality
religion tends to be static, maintaining continuity, to continue the social construct
science, continually has to re examine it's position, and adapt it's models to better match observed reality
AkioTsukino · M
@Dshhh Religion is always syncretistic. I think I would have the upper hand if I were to argue that science is inherently dogmatic. That's just human nature. Not that I disagree with your interpretation of science in theory, but in practice it is dogmatic. Science and theology are almost always wrong. Science because it corrects itself and theology because it doesn't.
Dshhh · M
@AkioTsukino just as there are religious leaders who violate the practices of their own religion,
there are Scientists that also violate the principles they are suppose to follow.
the failure of any one practitioner should not be held against the practice.
or should it? do we blame the catholic church, for the actions of pedophile priests
Should we blame medical science for the Tuskegee Syphilis study?
there are Scientists that also violate the principles they are suppose to follow.
the failure of any one practitioner should not be held against the practice.
or should it? do we blame the catholic church, for the actions of pedophile priests
Should we blame medical science for the Tuskegee Syphilis study?
AkioTsukino · M
@Dshhh Excellent! It's up to each of us, I suppose, how we practice and whether or not we care to align ourselves with the practice or the practitioner. What is the Latin phrase . . . abusus non tollit usum. The misuse of some thing does not eliminate the possibility of its correct use.
AkioTsukino · M
@Dshhh Well, thank you, Dshhh and I appreciate the same from you. And yes, I did watch the video in it's entirety. It reminded me of the Pepper Moth. Are you familiar? I didn't become a believer until I was 27, so in school as an unbeliever I was taught that the pepper moth was an example of evolution. Somewhere in England, I believe, before the first industrial revolution was, well known, two types of pepper moths. One dark and one light. The bark of the trees they gathered was light colored so the dark colored type was eaten by birds. The light colored type did much better, of course. Then the pollution of the revolution turned the bark dark and so the dark moths did much better than the light.
Long before I was a believer I didn't buy into evolution. In fact I don't personally know anyone that does buy into it. And almost all of the people I know are unbelievers.
Long before I was a believer I didn't buy into evolution. In fact I don't personally know anyone that does buy into it. And almost all of the people I know are unbelievers.
@AkioTsukino
[quote]In fact I don't personally know anyone that does buy into it[/quote]
Because that's where the evidence leads when one takes the time to be familiar with it.
Fossils, genetics, direct observation.
These things demonstrate that evolution has occurred. The majority of Christians today accept this just as they accept that the earth is not surrounded by a hard firmament.
[quote]In fact I don't personally know anyone that does buy into it[/quote]
Because that's where the evidence leads when one takes the time to be familiar with it.
Fossils, genetics, direct observation.
These things demonstrate that evolution has occurred. The majority of Christians today accept this just as they accept that the earth is not surrounded by a hard firmament.
AkioTsukino · M
@Pikachu [quote]Because that's where the evidence leads when one takes the time to be familiar with it.[/quote]
Evidence always has two sides. For and against. If dogmatic dominance dictates publishing and funding, well - forget about it. In theology if tradition trumps language, forget about the "scholarly consensus." Hell, immortal soul, rapture, trinity, cross, Christmas, and Easter, for example.
[quote]The majority of Christians today accept this just as they accept that the earth is not surrounded by a hard firmament.[/quote] The majority of Christians accept all of the pagan nonsense mentioned above. None of those are Bible teachings and neither is the firmament.
At Genesis 1:6 The word expanse is translated from the Hebrew raqia, which means "spreading out." Since the root word from which raqia comes is raqa, which is sometimes used in a sense of "beating out" some confusion has been caused by the Greek Septuagint translation of raqia as stereoma, which means "firm and solid structure" concluding when the Latin Vulgate used the term firmamentum because, at that time it was thought that there was a metallic dome surrounding the earth with sluice holes from which rain fell.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states: "But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O T." - Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314. For example, at Job 36:27-28 the water cycle is described without any reference to the Dark Ages understanding of sluice holes.
Evidence always has two sides. For and against. If dogmatic dominance dictates publishing and funding, well - forget about it. In theology if tradition trumps language, forget about the "scholarly consensus." Hell, immortal soul, rapture, trinity, cross, Christmas, and Easter, for example.
[quote]The majority of Christians today accept this just as they accept that the earth is not surrounded by a hard firmament.[/quote] The majority of Christians accept all of the pagan nonsense mentioned above. None of those are Bible teachings and neither is the firmament.
At Genesis 1:6 The word expanse is translated from the Hebrew raqia, which means "spreading out." Since the root word from which raqia comes is raqa, which is sometimes used in a sense of "beating out" some confusion has been caused by the Greek Septuagint translation of raqia as stereoma, which means "firm and solid structure" concluding when the Latin Vulgate used the term firmamentum because, at that time it was thought that there was a metallic dome surrounding the earth with sluice holes from which rain fell.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states: "But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O T." - Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314. For example, at Job 36:27-28 the water cycle is described without any reference to the Dark Ages understanding of sluice holes.
@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.