Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter Bob74h
- Start date
Mantis shrimps have like 10 receptors for different colors while we have 3. There are still animals without any eyes at all, animals with worse eyes and with better eyes.
This guy is a theologian, not a biologist.
Lmao
Darwin isnt the end all be all for evolution. So even if true, thats completely irrelevant
I think its particularly weird since my college is one of few ones where you can study comparative religious science instead of theology.
Post automatically merged:
This guy is a theologian, not a biologist.
Lmao
Post automatically merged:
Darwin isnt the end all be all for evolution. So even if true, thats completely irrelevant
Post automatically merged:
I think its particularly weird since my college is one of few ones where you can study comparative religious science instead of theology.
Last edited:
and a funny side note:
i mentioned how im now a zoo animal keeper. but im still in training, so i occasionally have classes for theoretical shit. and one student today mentioned macroevolution, and our teacher who deals with these topics since decaded legit never heard the term xDD
its crazy how ID shits are grasping at straws
nope. and i prefer the term ape since monkey can be ambiguous
i mentioned how im now a zoo animal keeper. but im still in training, so i occasionally have classes for theoretical shit. and one student today mentioned macroevolution, and our teacher who deals with these topics since decaded legit never heard the term xDD
its crazy how ID shits are grasping at straws
Post automatically merged:
nope. and i prefer the term ape since monkey can be ambiguous
@Cross_Marian this should be ample evidence to why you should watch it. ignoramus like him should add more veracity to people like hijab that irl would intellectually bully him
and you should look into Mohmmed hijab he's an academic and well-versed individual in islam unlike this ignoramus that feeds off footnotes of quasi-intellectuals
don't be soo confident it might do the damage instead, and yea only when you show me you understand the nuances
at least make some point if none at all
its a petty fraud that comes to mind when i read your posts and yea you shouldn't since you have been doing the same explicitly and implicitly
im sure you aren't gonna reply to this but
should you even be talking about interpretations i literally gave you early scholars who are literalists and take word for word as it is and even they come to the conclusion that earth is round but you have your mind shut in mud somewhere thinking Quran says earth is flat when even folks that leave you in the dust when it comes to quranic comprehension say otherwise . isn't this just peak dismissiveness at display
i mean you are also assuming there is a base interpretation of from which it was reinterpreted .. if that was the case you won't have scholars in the 7-8th century like Ahmad ibn hanbals (RA) companions who claimed a consensus that earth is sphere
the theory evolution isn't just one theory there are multiple ones
theories of evolution try to construct a mechanism, structure/diagram etc to explain how life came to be as we know it now .
rejection of an explanation of Evolution isn't rejection of evolution as you accuse me of ,the process itself,
that's a radical mentality and i never claimed i reject evolutions as a process, its like basing someone's opinion on whether something exists or not on whether they agree to an explanation of that thing, its also like saying gravity to me doesn't exist because i don't believe in Einstein's theory of gravity ,that's nonsensical.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160433/ (multiple theories of evolutions )
You are engaging in another fallacy here idk what your credentials are but I doubt they taught you about fallacies or you just weren't attentive.
At best theories give logical explanations that contain facts ,
and facts are synonymous to theories?
you realise one is an observation and another is an explanation?
your whole argument about the importance of what a theory in science which rests on "oh its the pinnacle of science "
its pinnacle of explanation in science it doesn't claim to be the most authentic proof of something it explains science until its disproven at best its valid which is not the problem to claims its synonymous to fact
is akin to ZKK theory level BS..
you are conflating the 2 terms
an explanation of facts doesn't make the explanation factual nor does it make it relative to reality actual constructs
its means to explain the actual constructs and that explanations can never be a fact given science's weakness it is induction and lack of evidence
The irony is you concede ancestry is such a broad plain field yet you call it synonymous to fact, when you are literally assuming the 99.9% of the dead biological blueprint of life isn't required but the point 1 percent is sufficient to to draw a conclusion you believe is akin to what realistically happened by saying its synonymous to a fact? i don't even get where you got that "synonymous" description from, it seems contradictory when you have alluded we'll prolly never have enough evidence given the scale of the scope.
the same interpreted facts (data) that lead to a theory can generate different conclusions and lead to different theory that is no way near synonymous to fact which is a reality,
there is no theory on the planet that explains the evolution like the unknown lost historical canon, you just cannot make that claim
you have blundered that one mate
I have done my due diligence explaining my POV to why i dont have to believe in theoretical explanations no matter how well elaborate they are
- explained your fallacy
- TOL is a theory with assumptive framework and mechanisms
- problem of induction persists.
- the DNA proof of Human chimp common ancestry is based on the assumption that such DNA similarities and viruses are due to common ancestry (homology) and not humans acquiring similar DNA by adapting under similar circumstance (homoplasy)
-mechanisms of the theory (natural selection) and the idea of survival of the fittest contradicts human sociology and has its flaws
etc
lol i'm not expecting much of a competent answer but it sure is laughable that someone this disingenuous and vapid has the gal even engage in such discussions
and you should look into Mohmmed hijab he's an academic and well-versed individual in islam unlike this ignoramus that feeds off footnotes of quasi-intellectuals
don't be soo confident it might do the damage instead, and yea only when you show me you understand the nuances
at least make some point if none at all
its a petty fraud that comes to mind when i read your posts and yea you shouldn't since you have been doing the same explicitly and implicitly
im sure you aren't gonna reply to this but
should you even be talking about interpretations i literally gave you early scholars who are literalists and take word for word as it is and even they come to the conclusion that earth is round but you have your mind shut in mud somewhere thinking Quran says earth is flat when even folks that leave you in the dust when it comes to quranic comprehension say otherwise . isn't this just peak dismissiveness at display
i mean you are also assuming there is a base interpretation of from which it was reinterpreted .. if that was the case you won't have scholars in the 7-8th century like Ahmad ibn hanbals (RA) companions who claimed a consensus that earth is sphere
the theory evolution isn't just one theory there are multiple ones
theories of evolution try to construct a mechanism, structure/diagram etc to explain how life came to be as we know it now .
rejection of an explanation of Evolution isn't rejection of evolution as you accuse me of ,the process itself,
that's a radical mentality and i never claimed i reject evolutions as a process, its like basing someone's opinion on whether something exists or not on whether they agree to an explanation of that thing, its also like saying gravity to me doesn't exist because i don't believe in Einstein's theory of gravity ,that's nonsensical.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3160433/ (multiple theories of evolutions )
You are engaging in another fallacy here idk what your credentials are but I doubt they taught you about fallacies or you just weren't attentive.
At best theories give logical explanations that contain facts ,
and facts are synonymous to theories?
you realise one is an observation and another is an explanation?
your whole argument about the importance of what a theory in science which rests on "oh its the pinnacle of science "
its pinnacle of explanation in science it doesn't claim to be the most authentic proof of something it explains science until its disproven at best its valid which is not the problem to claims its synonymous to fact
is akin to ZKK theory level BS..
you are conflating the 2 terms
an explanation of facts doesn't make the explanation factual nor does it make it relative to reality actual constructs
its means to explain the actual constructs and that explanations can never be a fact given science's weakness it is induction and lack of evidence
The irony is you concede ancestry is such a broad plain field yet you call it synonymous to fact, when you are literally assuming the 99.9% of the dead biological blueprint of life isn't required but the point 1 percent is sufficient to to draw a conclusion you believe is akin to what realistically happened by saying its synonymous to a fact? i don't even get where you got that "synonymous" description from, it seems contradictory when you have alluded we'll prolly never have enough evidence given the scale of the scope.
the same interpreted facts (data) that lead to a theory can generate different conclusions and lead to different theory that is no way near synonymous to fact which is a reality,
there is no theory on the planet that explains the evolution like the unknown lost historical canon, you just cannot make that claim
you have blundered that one mate
I have done my due diligence explaining my POV to why i dont have to believe in theoretical explanations no matter how well elaborate they are
- explained your fallacy
- TOL is a theory with assumptive framework and mechanisms
- problem of induction persists.
- the DNA proof of Human chimp common ancestry is based on the assumption that such DNA similarities and viruses are due to common ancestry (homology) and not humans acquiring similar DNA by adapting under similar circumstance (homoplasy)
-mechanisms of the theory (natural selection) and the idea of survival of the fittest contradicts human sociology and has its flaws
etc
lol i'm not expecting much of a competent answer but it sure is laughable that someone this disingenuous and vapid has the gal even engage in such discussions
Last edited:
Nah, biologists differentiate between homology and analogy. Not to mention that there is much more making us animals and primates and chordates and so on.
Uhm no? Us making natural selection obsolete (major reason being modern medicine, where evolution is also relevant) doesnt mean natural selection and mutations arent the reason for the diversity of life forms we have on our planet lmfao.
Thats my line considering your limited grasp of evolution and you thinking meme hijab is a legit source.
Fucking xenotransplantations are a thing yet there are arrogant religious nuts who so desperately want to be special that they deny reality.
Good thing that this is becoming less common among religious people
Post automatically merged:
Uhm no? Us making natural selection obsolete (major reason being modern medicine, where evolution is also relevant) doesnt mean natural selection and mutations arent the reason for the diversity of life forms we have on our planet lmfao.
Thats my line considering your limited grasp of evolution and you thinking meme hijab is a legit source.
Post automatically merged:
Fucking xenotransplantations are a thing yet there are arrogant religious nuts who so desperately want to be special that they deny reality.
Good thing that this is becoming less common among religious people
Last edited:
i'm not talking about analogy tho that is a strawman and a contradiction of what i said
homology and analogy are about different structures without common ancestry
homoplasy and homology are about similar structures without common ancestry and with commom ancestry
DNA evidence is put forth for homology for HUman - chimp common ancestry homoplasy a counter explanations of the similarities not analogy
and i dont know crap about evolution hun?
why make a valid theoretical mechanism obsolete who said that?you're adding words in my mouth
and just coz its valid for something's it doesn't mean its valid for others. Like i said it contradicts human sociology
another pathetic attempt to wiggle out of this aye
and what happened to me denying evolution lol ?
evidence for common ancestry ?LOL
homology and analogy are about different structures without common ancestry
homoplasy and homology are about similar structures without common ancestry and with commom ancestry
DNA evidence is put forth for homology for HUman - chimp common ancestry homoplasy a counter explanations of the similarities not analogy
and i dont know crap about evolution hun?
why make a valid theoretical mechanism obsolete who said that?you're adding words in my mouth
and just coz its valid for something's it doesn't mean its valid for others. Like i said it contradicts human sociology
another pathetic attempt to wiggle out of this aye
and what happened to me denying evolution lol ?
evidence for common ancestry ?LOL
Last edited:
The theory of evolution in itself is pretty solid and well established, there is little reason to doubt it. That being said, that of course doesn't prove or disprove god's existence, you could still say that evolution is a well designed system. Though I personally do not believe this to be the case. As long as god can exist seemingly without cause despite being so super complex, so can the universe be originated from a source that has no intelligence or consciousness (e.g. forces of nature).