Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter Bob74h
- Start date
@Cross_Marian
i recommend this video on the topic
and here is another early scholar claiming earth is round , evidence against this dweeb keeps increasing
i recommend this video on the topic
and here is another early scholar claiming earth is round , evidence against this dweeb keeps increasing
davids pup?
also i dont care about insults.
and well, "theory" is among the highest grades something can get in science. the point is more about the "explaining a group of facts or phenomena". So evolution is a natural phenomenon, a fact, that is explained by the theory of evolution. the theory obviously isnt perfect, because we wont ever find out about all organisms that lived on our planet since fossilization is a rare occurence. but yeah, if something gets elevated to "theory" in science, thats basically synonymous with it being a fact. or do you wanna suggest that gravity is just a theory as well?
also i dont care about insults.
and well, "theory" is among the highest grades something can get in science. the point is more about the "explaining a group of facts or phenomena". So evolution is a natural phenomenon, a fact, that is explained by the theory of evolution. the theory obviously isnt perfect, because we wont ever find out about all organisms that lived on our planet since fossilization is a rare occurence. but yeah, if something gets elevated to "theory" in science, thats basically synonymous with it being a fact. or do you wanna suggest that gravity is just a theory as well?
@Cross_Marian
i recommend this video on the topic
and here is another early scholar claiming earth is round , evidence against this dweeb keeps increasing
i recommend this video on the topic
and here is another early scholar claiming earth is round , evidence against this dweeb keeps increasing
but on another note then, meme hijab said if you only read the quran you will conclude that there is no age limit for sexual intercourse. is that legit? or is he only legit if he argues something that you agree with?
Post automatically merged:
based. and as i said, its perfectly possible to reinterpret it anyway
Post automatically merged:
it was alright. learning ancient greek was a pain in the ass. but yeah, im well educated on at least christianity and islam. other religions are not all that relevant in college. they get a seminar here and there, but most of it was about christianity and islam.
(im now a zoo animal keeper though)
Well i studied this shit in germany, dont know what school system you thought of.
And translations only being an approximation diesnt mean translations are completely useless. Most muslims dont know arabic either and depend on translations themselves. If the translations are good enough for that, they are good enough for me to read them and criticise the scripture. You can always check multiple translations
And translations only being an approximation diesnt mean translations are completely useless. Most muslims dont know arabic either and depend on translations themselves. If the translations are good enough for that, they are good enough for me to read them and criticise the scripture. You can always check multiple translations
This is allegedly Newton's quote :
“Opposite to [Godliness] is atheism in profession, and idolatry (pagan, idol worship) in practise. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels), and just two eyes and no more on either side of the face, and just two ears on either side of the head, and a nose with two holes and no more between the eyes, and one mouth under the nose, and either two fore legs or two wings or two arms on the sholders and two legs on the hips, one on either side and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, and within transparent juices with a crystalline lens in the middle and a pupil before the lens, all of them so truly shaped and fitted for vision that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and such like considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a being who made all things and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.” - Isaac Newton
Take this with a grain of salt though, as i took this from a random YT user, maybe he took this from Principia or whatever.
At 0:50 to 0:56 :
Video :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, a few days ago i watched this video from a huge channel ( TED-ed, 18.6 million subs ), i was probably looking for a detailed explanation on how our eyes came into existence in the first place, and how the blind, unguided processes of evolution refined our eyes on their own.
But i don't think this video provided a detailed explanation on how our eyes came into existence in the first place.
The Narrator seems to just assume that our eyes must have evolved/come to existence on it's own, from a simple light spot such as the one found in that creature named "Euglena".
- He then went to assume that the refinements to our eyes also evolved/came on their own ( Cornea, Lens, Iris, Sclera, and Tear Glands ).
- He also seems to assume our Brain evolved/came into existence on it's own.
- He then went to mention that our eyes are far from being an ideal masterpiece of design ( although admitted and explained how they are an amazing mechanism at the very start of the video )
He explained how our eye have a blind spot, and tried to explain how Cephalopods have better eyes.
But is this true? Maybe not. Biologist and ID proponent Jonathan Wells argued against this in his article :
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/05/is-the-human-eye-really-evidence-against-intelligent-design-2/
I'm happy though that this TED-ed video basically confirmed Darwin himself doubted Human Eyes could have evolved on their own.
But still, it just assumed eyes came into existence on their own, and the blind & unguided processes of evolution went on to build/improve eyes, also on their own.....
- in this article David Coppedge also may have highlighted how scientists just assumed the eye evolved on it's own :
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/03/convergence-one-celled-creature-has-an-eye/
- in this tweet that i've just posted in my previous post, it seems it was also just assumed that several cellular mechanisms for repairing damaged DNA + correcting sequence errors, "have evolved" :
Or in the other cases, the usual line is "it evolved", which is just handwaving, and is not an adequate explanation of how they came to existence ( well it's not even an explanation ).
Well, these things reminded me of what Dr. Miller said that "there are no detailed explanations of anything, of significance" from the theory of Evolution ( at least the Neo-Darwinism theory i assume ), and that "it's all just storytelling, it's just handwaving"
At 28:33 to 32:07
“Opposite to [Godliness] is atheism in profession, and idolatry (pagan, idol worship) in practise. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels), and just two eyes and no more on either side of the face, and just two ears on either side of the head, and a nose with two holes and no more between the eyes, and one mouth under the nose, and either two fore legs or two wings or two arms on the sholders and two legs on the hips, one on either side and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, and within transparent juices with a crystalline lens in the middle and a pupil before the lens, all of them so truly shaped and fitted for vision that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and such like considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a being who made all things and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.” - Isaac Newton
Take this with a grain of salt though, as i took this from a random YT user, maybe he took this from Principia or whatever.
At 0:50 to 0:56 :
Video :
Now, a few days ago i watched this video from a huge channel ( TED-ed, 18.6 million subs ), i was probably looking for a detailed explanation on how our eyes came into existence in the first place, and how the blind, unguided processes of evolution refined our eyes on their own.
But i don't think this video provided a detailed explanation on how our eyes came into existence in the first place.
The Narrator seems to just assume that our eyes must have evolved/come to existence on it's own, from a simple light spot such as the one found in that creature named "Euglena".
- He then went to assume that the refinements to our eyes also evolved/came on their own ( Cornea, Lens, Iris, Sclera, and Tear Glands ).
- He also seems to assume our Brain evolved/came into existence on it's own.
- He then went to mention that our eyes are far from being an ideal masterpiece of design ( although admitted and explained how they are an amazing mechanism at the very start of the video )
He explained how our eye have a blind spot, and tried to explain how Cephalopods have better eyes.
But is this true? Maybe not. Biologist and ID proponent Jonathan Wells argued against this in his article :
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/05/is-the-human-eye-really-evidence-against-intelligent-design-2/
I'm happy though that this TED-ed video basically confirmed Darwin himself doubted Human Eyes could have evolved on their own.
But still, it just assumed eyes came into existence on their own, and the blind & unguided processes of evolution went on to build/improve eyes, also on their own.....
- in this article David Coppedge also may have highlighted how scientists just assumed the eye evolved on it's own :
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/03/convergence-one-celled-creature-has-an-eye/
- in this tweet that i've just posted in my previous post, it seems it was also just assumed that several cellular mechanisms for repairing damaged DNA + correcting sequence errors, "have evolved" :
Or in the other cases, the usual line is "it evolved", which is just handwaving, and is not an adequate explanation of how they came to existence ( well it's not even an explanation ).
Well, these things reminded me of what Dr. Miller said that "there are no detailed explanations of anything, of significance" from the theory of Evolution ( at least the Neo-Darwinism theory i assume ), and that "it's all just storytelling, it's just handwaving"
At 28:33 to 32:07