Evolution? please prove it!

  • Thread starter Thread starter juhothenero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What flawed reasoning have I suggested?

Peace

Tim
all your ranting about things without saying anything with meaning instead all the time talking about your opponent like they are your toilet seat… that is the flawed reasoning that i was thinking about… you made a good point in the end though, just took a long long time to come out…
 
Finally… thanks for the answer Tim… give you one more hint… next time just say it in the beginning and save a lot of trouble… also don’t be so hasty to condemn others who don’t know things and don’t be proud… just for your own sake… thanks for the answer…

This is what i was looking for from the beginning
You are welcome. But that is not what you asked for in the beginning. You asked for someone to “Please proof with no doubt that this video is false using a scientific method, journals, articles and books…”. If you accept what I wrote to my friend buffalo as proof with no doubt, you didn’t have a very high bar for “proof” to begin with.

Peace

Tim
 
You are welcome. But that is not what you asked for in the beginning. You asked for someone to “Please proof with no doubt that this video is false using a scientific method, journals, articles and books…”. If you accept what I wrote to my friend buffalo as proof with no doubt, you didn’t have a very high bar for “proof” to begin with.

Peace

Tim
You are right but i thought from the way you talk that you are some kind of scientist but anyway you are right… that means we are back to square one… you still haven’t actually proven it… i was being a little too forgiving on your part… please really prove it…

By the way, let me give you another hint, after you prove a point don’t be so eager to say something back that you destroy your own point… that is not very smart in a debate of any kind… just shows some immature nature of the debater… be content at winning… I say this even you just gave me new weapons…
 
You are right but i thought from the way you talk that you are some kind of scientist but anyway you are right… that means we are back to square one… you still haven’t actually proven it… i was being a little too forgiving on your part… please really prove it…
Research what I wrote. That would be a good start towards “proving” that the sedimentology part of the video is wrong.

As I said before, I didn’t watch the video. If the arguments against evolution are as weak as Berthault’s arguments, you should try and verify the claims with your own research into the subject.
By the way, let me give you another hint, after you prove a point don’t be so eager to say something back that you destroy your own point… that is not very smart in a debate of any kind… just shows some immature nature of the debater… be content at winning… I say this even you just gave me new weapons…
Really? You are interested in the debate instead of the truth? So be it. I take back what I said. I thought you were interested in learning about the truth.🤷

Peace

Tim
 
Research what I wrote. That would be a good start towards “proving” that the sedimentology part of the video is wrong.

As I said before, I didn’t watch the video. If the arguments against evolution are as weak as Berthault’s arguments, you should try and verify the claims with your own research into the subject.

Really? You are interested in the debate instead of the truth? So be it. I take back what I said. I thought you were interested in learning about the truth.🤷

Peace

Tim
I noticed you have knowledge of this issue, i am not interested on debating non-sense that is why i asked you why you didn’t say from the beginning… a lot of posts could have been saved…

About your debating skills i have a doubt but your knowledge i believe in… When i saw this video i had no idea it is true or not, so i come here to find out knowing that there is a lot of people here who know these kind of things better then me, hence as i said my main interest is in computers and theology and philosophy, all subjects which i study, biology or such things i haven’t been interested since i got out from high school…

just telling you the truth… but you would benefit some debating skills study…

by the way your last comment is not consistent with what i said, i was giving you a hint on debating not on my own interest
 
Actually there is nothing to laugh about it. find me one philosophy book that proves logically and without a doubt that scientific theory is real… best try was so far from Wittgenstein and even he didn’t succeed… this is a different matter actually and much more higher level then you think…
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
I wonder if jugithenero and Orogeny are the same individual? Because they appear to have very similar flawed reasoning.
 
Juhothenero:

You have not presented an argument against evolution, you argue against abiogenesis. I will explain evolution to you in very simple terms:

Organisms occassionally receive genetic mutations. This is a fact. Sometimes, those mutations are either beneficial or detrimental. If it is detrimental, the organism likely dies off. But if it is beneficial, it can have an edge over other organisms, and over a long period of time the descendants of the original mutant overcome the ‘regular’ organisms so that the entire species is now of the mutant line. This is shown through the fossil record. Now, as a former creationist, I know a favorite ‘point’ is that “there are no transitional fossils”. Actually, every fossil is a transitional fossil because the species of the fossilized organism continued to evolve.

One interesting point brought up by Kenneth Miller (who is an evolutionist and a Roman Catholic, in case your averse attitude to evolution is grounded in the faith) is that the chromosomal difference between humans and apes is one chromosome; they have one more than we do. Now, if we came from the same ancestor as apes did, what happened to the missing chromosome? Well, at the ends of chromosomes are what are called telomeres. But in the middle of human chromosome number 2, there is a telomere sequence. How do we account for this? It is two chromosomes fused together, thus accounting for the gap between humans and apes.
Was it done by ‘divine welding’ or at least a divinely guided process? I think so.

Now that we have presented our arguments, you must present a counter argument as to why you think we are wrong.
 
I wonder if jugithenero and Orogeny are the same individual? Because they appear to have very similar flawed reasoning.
here is the thing: scientific method cannot be proven with science right? so what it can be proven with? it has to have logical proof behind it, that means philosophy, right? so where is your philosophy? there are two methods for science you need them both, first rational that means the philosophy behind logic that needs to be sound? second empirical evidence has to be proven reliable, how?

If you believe the current reflection it is the best out there, but that probably doesn’t mean that it is right, right? so where is your proof?

this is actually OFF TOPIC and should start a second thread for it hence it is not about evolution to begin with…
 
Juhothenero:

You have not presented an argument against evolution, you argue against abiogenesis. I will explain evolution to you in very simple terms:

Organisms occassionally receive genetic mutations. This is a fact. Sometimes, those mutations are either beneficial or detrimental. If it is detrimental, the organism likely dies off. But if it is beneficial, it can have an edge over other organisms, and over a long period of time the descendants of the original mutant overcome the ‘regular’ organisms so that the entire species is now of the mutant line. This is shown through the fossil record. Now, as a former creationist, I know a favorite ‘point’ is that “there are no transitional fossils”. Actually, every fossil is a transitional fossil because the species of the fossilized organism continued to evolve.

One interesting point brought up by Kenneth Miller (who is an evolutionist and a Roman Catholic, in case your averse attitude to evolution is grounded in the faith) is that the chromosomal difference between humans and apes is one chromosome; they have one more than we do. Now, if we came from the same ancestor as apes did, what happened to the missing chromosome? Well, at the ends of chromosomes are what are called telomeres. But in the middle of human chromosome number 2, there is a telomere sequence. How do we account for this? It is two chromosomes fused together, thus accounting for the gap between humans and apes.
Was it done by ‘divine welding’ or at least a divinely guided process? I think so.

Now that we have presented our arguments, you must present a counter argument as to why you think we are wrong.
I was wanting evidence correspond to that video, i saw it and don’t know too much about it, never really think evolution this or that way so i wanted to see whether it was true…

the debate on the scientific method and its reliability is of course a whole other ball park as you know, but on the basis you say, i think evolution is probably true… i just wanted to get answers since my knowledge is not on the level in this issue…

I will not counter it since i haven’t studied it, don’t make false assumption that i am here for debate not for the truth… i am here to know the truth if that video can be said to be false…
 
…I will not counter it since i haven’t studied it, don’t make false assumption that i am here for debate not for the truth… i am here to know the truth if that video can be said to be false…
its clear you’re not here to learn anything, but for the attention and to squabble. if you want to learn about something, stay away from youtube.
 
its clear you’re not here to learn anything, but for the attention and to squabble. if you want to learn about something, stay away from youtube.
I don’t use youtube, except for music, i am not assigned there nor do i really care to talk there to anyone… It is fantastic what assumptions you make, that video is on a website link to Google videos, not youtube… I found it from a very traditional site www.catholicintl.com while i was reading information about Tilma…

I would like to say something about your attitude to people but on Christian charity i will leave it unsaid… I was here to find info, i don’t have time to study in these things so i thought that video might be OK, i wanted it countered and it has been… By this mark the OP is out of this thread… i will go pursue more things…

About the philosophical foundations of science they have to be discussed on separate thread, since in this one it is OFF TOPIC…

Please install some more Christian virtues to your hearts people, such as patience, charity and love… this thread would have been over in one post if people would not be so hateful…

I will pray for you,

Juhou

P.S. OP is really out and not coming back to this thread anymore, feel free to put as much hate on me as you want… it is your free choice…
 
Over 95% of scientists in the world believe in evolution.

The idea that there is a deep division in the scientific community is an incredible myth created by creationists. There is a lot of controversy on a lot of the details, but very few credible scientists outright deny the existence of evolution.
 

I would like to say something about your attitude to people but on Christian charity i will leave it unsaid…this thread would have been over in one post if people would not be so hateful…

I will pray for you,

Juhou…
since you’ve addressed me, my response is that you’re a troll and please, please, don’t pray for me.
 
Over 95% of scientists in the world believe in evolution.

The idea that there is a deep division in the scientific community is an incredible myth created by creationists. There is a lot of controversy on a lot of the details, but very few credible scientists outright deny the existence of evolution.
It’s so funny, too, that the six days of creation are actually scientifically impossible. I mean, really, who are creationists trying to fool? There are gases and liquids and solids and all kinds of matter in the Universe. God created them all for a reason; He didn’t just create this or create that randomly, He created everything deliberately. It takes a combination of oxygen and hydrogen to make water, it takes a complex chemical reaction for a star to turn into a supernova. Nothing happpens instanteously. Things take time and energy to happen. So how could God create everything in the Universe in only six days? It’s impossible!
 
It’s so funny, too, that the six days of creation are actually scientifically impossible. I mean, really, who are creationists trying to fool? There are gases and liquids and solids and all kinds of matter in the Universe. God created them all for a reason; He didn’t just create this or create that randomly, He created everything deliberately. It takes a combination of oxygen and hydrogen to make water, it takes a complex chemical reaction for a star to turn into a supernova. Nothing happpens instanteously. Things take time and energy to happen. So how could God create everything in the Universe in only six days? It’s impossible!
Actually on this one i have to comment, I am sorry I am back though, but on evolution I am out and not debating…

The Bible does not say the creation must have happened in six days in order like that 1st day 2nd day 3rd day 4th day, it says it happened in 6 days like God said this and that and thus went a day 1 and God said and thus went day 2, in that kind of fashion…

The point is and i think it has been made before, nobody knows how many days there are in between those six days, it just has a direct link between day 6 and 7, to say directly after day 6 God started his rest, but in between those other days, there can be any given amount of time and it wouldn’t matter… The bible would still got it right…

so big bang would be day 1 and life would be day 3 but there can be billions of years in between and bible doesn’t contradict it and God could easily have done it that way… since he is eternal a few billion years probably is no problem for him…

Also the evening and morning said can be understood non-literally with God resting for the night, not so that a day must follow directly as we see it, we also rest at night so such a word usage would actually make sense 🙂
 
Actually on this one i have to comment, I am sorry I am back though, but on evolution I am out and not debating…

The Bible does not say the creation must have happened in six days in order like that 1st day 2nd day 3rd day 4th day, it says it happened in 6 days like God said this and that and thus went a day 1 and God said and thus went day 2, in that kind of fashion…

The point is and i think it has been made before, nobody knows how many days there are in between those six days, it just has a direct link between day 6 and 7, to say directly after day 6 God started his rest, but in between those other days, there can be any given amount of time and it wouldn’t matter… The bible would still got it right…

so big bang would be day 1 and life would be day 3 but there can be billions of years in between and bible doesn’t contradict it and God could easily have done it that way… since he is eternal a few billion years probably is no problem for him…

Also the evening and morning said can be understood non-literally with God resting for the night, not so that a day must follow directly as we see it, we also rest at night so such a word usage would actually make sense 🙂
Once again you’re using flawed reasoning. That may very well be what Protestants think of creation, but unfortunately for Protestants, the Bible is Catholic, so you have to go by what the Catholic Church teaches about the creation, and this what she teaches:

The six days are symbolic. They are not literally just six days, six sequences of twenty-four hours, followed by ngihts. God did not literally rest after each day, nor did He literally rest after the last day; He is God, not man. The six days are meant to symbolically reveal the sacredness of the Sabbath, the Day of Rest, the seventh day; God finished creating Creation on the seventh day, and so rested from His work; Jews and Christians, too, must rest from work on the Day of the Lord, whereby they imitate God.

A day to God, in the biblical sense, means a thousand years, which is symbolic for meaning an indefinite amount of time; likewise, to God a thousand years is but a day - so you can see why God inspired the writers of Genesis to depict creation as unfolding in six days. The six days mean six thousand years, and since the number seven is symbolic for completition, the six thousand years means God took an immeasure amount of time to complete His work of creation. (This dosen’t mean we can’t measure the age of the Universe; it just means we can’t measure the age of the whole Creation) Hence to try to calculate the age of the Universe based on the number of days in Genesis, or to try to figure exactly when God created the Universe, is futile. The Bible is not meant to be as a read as a textbook of science. Even if science finds evidence that supports the six days of creation, it sitll won’t mean the Bible can be read as a textbook; it’s not a science book, it’s revelation.

Moreover, the reason God’s work is divided into days is to show that God created everything - light; darkness; sea; land; sky; celestial bodies; plants; animals; etc., that God’s command brings about creation (this ties in with the fall of man, when God’s command is not obeyed), that God created everything through His Word, that the culmination of the Universe is man, that out of evil God brights forth a greater good, that God provides man with all that he neeeds, and a number of other truths which are found in the Bible.

Finally, the six days of creation point to Jesus Christ, who is the Image of God. Throughout history the Lord had been preparing for His Son to come dwell among us, and when He came, the Lord sent the Holy Spirit to descend upon Him and said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased”. The Father revealed Jesus to be His Image, His Son, in whom and for whom He created everything, and He revealed Him to be the Messiah, the awaited King, who would usher in the days of redemption which the whole House of Israel had been waiting for for a very long time. The words “let us make man in our image and likeness” herald the coming of Jesus, who would restore the Image of God in man in Himself, being the God-Man.
 
Once again you’re using flawed reasoning. That may very well be what Protestants think of creation, but unfortunately for Protestants, the Bible is Catholic, so you have to go by what the Catholic Church teaches about the creation, and this what she teaches:

The six days are symbolic. They are not literally just six days, six sequences of twenty-four hours, followed by ngihts. God did not literally rest after each day, nor did He literally rest after the last day; He is God, not man. The six days are meant to symbolically reveal the sacredness of the Sabbath, the Day of Rest, the seventh day; God finished creating Creation on the seventh day, and so rested from His work; Jews and Christians, too, must rest from work on the Day of the Lord, whereby they imitate God.

A day to God, in the biblical sense, means a thousand years, which is symbolic for meaning an indefinite amount of time. Likewise, to God a thousand years is but a day - so you can see why creation is depicted as unfolding in six days. The six days mean six thousand years, and since the number seven is symbolic for completition, the six thousand years means God took an immeasure amount of time to complete His work of creation. (This dosen’t mean we can’t measure the age of the Universe; it just means we can’t measure the age of the whole Creation) Hence to try to calculate the age of the Universe based on the number of days in Genesis, or to try to figure exactly when God created the Universe, is futile. The Bible is not meant to be as a read as a textbook of science. Even if science finds evidence that supports the six days of creation, it sitll won’t mean the Bible can be read as a textbook; it’s not a science book, it’s revelation.

Moreover, the reason God’s work is divided into days is to show that God created everything - light; darkness; sea; land; sky; celestial bodies; plants; animals; etc., that God’s command brings about creation (this ties in with the fall of man, when God’s command is not obeyed), that God created everything through His Word, that the culmination of the Universe is man, that out of evil God brights forth a greater good, that God provides man with all that he neeeds, and a number of other truths which are found in the Bible.

Finally, the six days of creation point to Jesus Christ, who is the Image of God. Throughout history the Lord had been preparing for His Son to come dwell among us, and when He came, the Lord sent the Holy Spirit to descend upon Him and said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased”. The Father revealed Jesus to be His Image, His Son, in whom and for whom He created everything, and He revealed Him to be the Messiah, the awaited King, who would usher in the days of redemption which the whole House of Israel had been waiting for for a very long time. The words “let us make man in our image and likeness” herald the coming of Jesus, who would restore man’s image, that is, the Image of God in man.
Yeah, This is actually what i just said, the only difference is the continuity of happenings which basically does not make difference to the point…

Can you post a link to this one? Is it a Magisterium document?
 
Yeah, This is actually what i just said, the only difference is the continuity of happenings which basically does not make difference to the point…

Can you post a link to this one? Is it a Magisterium document?

and please cut down on the **** you factor on your speech… there is absolutely no need for that… I am already sorry about using that kind of language, but i am getting tired of hatefulness on this forum… moderators should do something about it…
It’s not a document of the Church, it’s what the Church teaches. However, you are free to check what I’ve just said, to make sure I am correct in what I’m saying, and, if not correct, than to correct me, charitably.

Please cut down on that kind of language. You ruin threads by it. I’m not using any kind of spit in my speech, either: I’m showing you the truth. You’re using flawed reasoning, and since the Bible is Catholic, you have to go by what the Catholic Church teaches. Otherwise you’re twisting the scriptural verses, which is wrong.

An example of your flawed reasoning: You say the Big Bang is day 1. This is not correct. This is an instance of taking the six days of creation in a way too literal manner. It may seem correct, because when you read of light and darkness you think of God bringing the Universe out of nothing, but the fact is you’re mixing science with theology. The Church dose not teach God created the Universe through the Big Bang. The BB is a scientific theory. What the Church teaches is that God brought forth creation from nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top