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 [quote]Evolution is theoretical[/quote]
you misunderstand the word Theory as being some idea some guys have..
The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public,. Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that interprets facts resulting in a logical construct
[quote]Is that observable?[/quote]
Evolution is verified across all of nature, we can watch it happen in real time, using fast reproducing microbes. here is a link to that ongoing experiment. you can watch the microbes adapt,
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8]

you are obviously well read, it is good to have well educated persons in this place.
and yes biologically we ARE apes

@Dshhh [quote]yes biologically we ARE apes[/quote]

Yes, but what about Biblically? What constitutes the Biblical kind? How do they differ? How many species in a Biblical kind? Very simply, if a bacteria evolves into something that is bacteria, from the Biblical perspective, the evolution isn't a problem. A caterpillar changes into a butterfly, a seed into a plant, but a pepper moth doesn't change into an orangutan.

@AkioTsukino
[quote]Yes, but what about Biblically? What constitutes the Biblical kind? [/quote]

What indeed. Creationists tend to be a bit vague on that. Often it seems to refer to the family level but not always.
Essentially if "kind" is incredibly specific ( as it is in some instances in the bible) then there are way too many "kinds" to make possible myths like the Noachian flood. On the other hand, if "kind" is more general then in order to achieve the diversity of life we see on the planet. creations [i]need[/i] "macro" evolution and what's more, they need it to be happening far faster than any speciation event known to be possible.

There is indeed a difference in science as a way of knowing and theology as a way of knowing.
The problem occurs when creationists attempt to claim the legitimacy of science for a theology that is just incompatible in several places that they consider important.

@Pikachu [quote]What indeed. Creationists tend to be a bit vague on that.[/quote]

Might as well ask the cat, huh? I can be like that. Genesis 1:11 The Biblical kind, from the Hebrew leminoh, Greek genos, and Latin genus, differs from the Evolutionist kind. The Biblical "kind" can be defined as divisions in which cross fertility can occur, a boundary between these kinds is drawn where fertilization ceases. Apple trees, for example, don’t produce broccoli, squirrels don’t produce horses.

In biology a kind applies to animals and plants which possess one or more distinctive characteristics, meaning the biological term kind may contain several varieties within a Biblical kind.

[quote]Essentially if "kind" is incredibly specific ( as it is in some instances in the bible) then there are way too many "kinds" to make possible myths like the Noachian flood.[/quote]

The ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. A cubit is about 17.5 inches (44.5 cm, though some estimate it to be 56 or 61). So about 437’ 6“ x 72’ 11“ x 43' 9". It had 1,400,000 cu ft (40,000 cu m) in gross volume. About the same as the Titanic. With three decks, no engines, steering etc. it had roughly 96,000 sq ft (8,900 sq m) of space.

A conservative estimate of the animals is that as few as 74 kinds of birds, 43 kinds of mammals, and 10 kinds of reptiles would be enough. Others say 72 kinds of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird kinds would be required. There are now about 1,300,000 species of animals, but over 60% are insects. Of 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians both of which could have been safe outside the ark. Only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, also outside the ark.

Only about 290 species of land mammals are larger than sheep and about 1,350 smaller than rats.

[quote]There is indeed a difference in science as a way of knowing and theology as a way of knowing.
The problem occurs when creationists attempt to claim the legitimacy of science for a theology that is just incompatible in several places that they consider important.[/quote]

Hmm. Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system. I wouldn't trust it or theology as a way of knowing much of anything. I've noticed two things about science. 1. They tend to doubt until technology figures it out, then they jump on the bandwagon. Flight, for example. The wright brothers. 2. They tend to get the Bible horribly wrong. Even more than theology. For example, they attribute celestial phenomenon in the book of Revelation as superstitious fear and ignorance. Ironically "they" (notice I'm using they to describe a method of investigation often misrepresented by the dogmatic and uninformed) didn't bother to check the language, as it was used to describe the same celestial phenomenon in the past. Daniel, Ezekiel, for example, to describe political, social and environmental upheaval. Jerusalem destroyed by Babylon, resulting in a new government, new people, new Jerusalem.

The same exact wording in Revelation is that upheaval on a grander, or global scale.

That's the problem I see with the estimation of science regarding theology. Not to mention the supernatural isn't really tested by science and the Bible isn't a science book.

@AkioTsukino

Well there's no such thing as an "evolutionary kind". That's not a taxonomic classification.

[quote]. The Biblical "kind" can be defined as divisions in which cross fertility can occur[/quote]

But is it? Because a Lion and a tiger can breed and even occasionally produce viable offspring and they are considered "cat kind"....but surely a Cheetah is also considered "cat kind" but it cannot breed with either of the others.
Or a wolf and a coyote can breed but neither can breed with a fox. And yet they would typically be considered wolf/dog "kind".

In short, no. That's doesn't appear to be a [i]consistent[/i] description of the biblical "kind".

[quote]The ark was 300 cubits long...[/quote]

Sorry, there's really no way to make the ark work. Even if you cut out all arthropods because they don't have the "breath of life in their nostrils", and the cetaceans ( you can't really cut out reptiles as a whole or amphibians because they are in the former case mostly terrestrial and in the latter case not great at surviving in salt water) and even some birds...there's still no way to make the ark work.
It falters at the hurdle i mentioned earlier where either there are too many "kinds" to possibly include on the ark or the required diversification of life necessary to achieve the levels we see today would be impossibly rapid.
Even the mere existence of the Proboscidean lineage precludes the ark myth actually happening.
I've got a thread on it if you're interested (linked below) but the short version is that even if you take only a few Proboscideans (elephant "kind"), and assume a metabolic rate of a sleeping juvenile AND assume the most nutrient-dense feed possible....they would take up 60% of the Ark's available space for themselves and their feed, based on the parameters set out in the bible.
https://similarworlds.com/spirituality/3908381-More-science-which-destroys-Young-Earth

[quote]Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system[/quote]
Agreed.
It's a way of knowing what is true about the world we live in. So far the most consistent, reliable tool we have yet devised.

[quote]the supernatural isn't really tested by science[/quote]
Agreed.
Science is incompetent to study the supernatural. But that does not mean that through science we cannot demonstrate that certain things are not possible through natural means. And for things like the Heat Problem of YEC, creationists must indeed invoke a supernatural miracle because the natural laws discovered through science preclude a certain of their beliefs.

[quote]the Bible isn't a science book.[/quote]
Agreed.
And that's where creationists run into trouble these days because their specific belief system is dwindling and so they want to co-opt the legitimacy of science...but the fact is that you're right and the Bible is not a book which describes science. Just try getting a stripped calf to be borne by showing it's mother some stripped sticks lol

@AkioTsukino for many of us a "biblical truth" has little merit, it is a book of many authors many unknown, much of it ( old testament) from waaay back in the bronze age. ( i am NOT the best one to talk this,, @Amylynne)
many of the stories in it, and in some of the new testament, can also be attributed to other belief systems like the epic of Gilgamesh,

When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, we understand that as a myth.

When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a myth.
When ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we understand that as a myth.

When Vespatian’s spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a myth. or propaganda
When Apollonius of Tyana [c=4C0073]raised a girl from death[/c], we understand that as a myth.
 When the Pythia , the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years, the prophecies came true, we understand that as a myth.

When Dionysus [c=4C0073]turned water into wine[/c], we understand that as a myth.
When Dionysus believers are filled with[i] atay,[/i] the Spirit of God, we understand that as a myth.

When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a myth.

When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal , we understand that as a myth.
or propaganda
When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

When Scipio Africanus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth, or propaganda


i think this must be then about faith,[b] belief in spite of conflicting evidence[/b],. hearsay is not evidence, and the bible is hearsay.
[quote]
pepper moth doesn't change into an orangutan.
[/quote]

no one suggests this. but we do have reamns of animals that are ancestral to those living today, Like all those extinct horses, and sure enugh the genes of todays horses are found in the extinc populations..

@Pikachu [quote]And that's where creationists run into trouble these days because their specific belief system is dwindling and so they want to co-opt the legitimacy of science[/quote]

Why would they want to do that? The Bible told that their belief system was flawed, which it obviously was, and that it would dwindle. They wouldn't want to prevent that, would they, now?

@Dshhh I was planning on starting a new thread on Gilgamesh, so, I'll leave that for later.

As for the interesting bits of myth you brought up, you have to realize how that sort of thing works. And this will be expanded upon in my new thread on Gilgamesh, but mythology, like religion, is syncretistic. They intermingle with one another over time, they are transmogrified. It's like holidays. Like history, really. Paul Revere didn't ride through town on a horse crying "The British are coming!" They were a British colony. They were all British. George Washington wasn't the first US president. He didn't have wooden teeth. He was a politician who cheated on his wife. Never told a lie? Nonsense.

So, take the Christ myth theory, for example. Jesus being similar to pagan gods of mythology. The first problem you have with that is that the commonality itself, if it does exist, though it usually doesn't, would says something in and of itself. Sometimes. Sometimes the allegations would be easily falsifiable. Like some other god was born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, died on a cross, was born on December 25th. So, if you look at the mythologies themselves, they don't say that. And if you look closely at Jesus some of that doesn't apply to him either. Myth becomes legend, legend becomes tradition, all mixing up on the way. Anything can be a god. Lots of people were sons of gods. Often creator gods were created by other gods, Jesus didn't die on a cross, and he wasn't born in December, eternal life is a common theme, Dionysus didn't turn water into wine, he only called a cup of water wine. He wasn't born of a virgin. Some of the gods allegedly born a virgin weren't even actually born at all. He didn't do miracles, etc.

[b]Edit:[/b] Ooops. Wait a minute. I'm trigger happy. I didn't finish this. Coming up. . . .

[quote]i think this must be then about faith, belief in spite of conflicting evidence,. hearsay is not evidence, and the bible is hearsay.[/quote]

Faith isn't belief in spite of conflicting evidence. You sure wouldn't want to tell your wife that. Faith is trust. It isn't wisely based upon lies or blind. In my opinion the Bible isn't hearsay.

@AkioTsukino II look forward to you post on Gilgamesh and company and am happy to keep some focus on the philosophy rather than any particular orthodoxy

@AkioTsukino

[quote]Why would they want to do that? [/quote]

Because they believe what they believe and they want other people to believe it too.
But they're losing ground and so they want to use science to bolster the legitimacy of their belief in the eyes of others.
Unfortunately for them it doesn't.

@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

[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.