Zone1 Religion Versus Evolution

[ChristisKing]

This was a conversation that I was having earlier today. I have faith in Jesus Christ because it's a whole lot easier to have faith in Him than chimpanzees turning into human beings. After all, if that was the case don't you think that would still be happening? Here's another good argument that the Bible is the truth. I didn't use to be a young earther until I saw this video.







Third argument, it has been scientifically proven that Jesus Christ was born, lived, and died. So if He didn't rise from the dead then where are His remains? I actually heard that one from a Charlie Kirk video I just can't remember which one.

 

[Dante]

"No, humans did not evolve from chimps. Instead, humans and chimpanzees are both great apes that evolved from a now-extinct common ancestor that lived millions of years ago, with some scientists placing the split between 5 and 7 million years ago. This means that chimps and humans share a common ancestor but took different evolutionary paths, making them close relatives rather than one species directly descending from the other" - simple search engine query

 

[Dante]

chimpanzees turning into human beings

This would be "willful ignorance" on steroids

Science does not posit that "chimpanzees turned into human beings" -- sorry

 

[Kyrion]

Classic example of conservatives only being able to engage in bad faith. In this specific example, the point of this conservative being anti-science is due to how conservatism as an ideology is against the idea of empiricism and would much rather fall back on appeals to authority. Which is more favorable for conservatives since just waving a book around that they have not read and declaring things as true or false is way way way easier than doing an actual science.

Conservatism is the default stance you take when you are lazy and slow.

 

[Cougarbear]

"No, humans did not evolve from chimps. Instead, humans and chimpanzees are both great apes that evolved from a now-extinct common ancestor that lived millions of years ago, with some scientists placing the split between 5 and 7 million years ago. This means that chimps and humans share a common ancestor but took different evolutionary paths, making them close relatives rather than one species directly descending from the other" - simple search engine query

And, where is evidence of this so called common ancestor? Let's see the bones, the pictures and the videos. LOL!

 

[Cougarbear]

Classic example of conservatives only being able to engage in bad faith. In this specific example, the point of this conservative being anti-science is due to how conservatism as an ideology is against the idea of empiricism and would much rather fall back on appeals to authority. Which is more favorable for conservatives since just waving a book around that they have not read and declaring things as true or false is way way way easier than doing an actual science.

Conservatism is the default stance you take when you are lazy and slow.

At least we have a book. What do you have? Nothing. Talk about lazy!

 

[Dante]

And, where is evidence of this so called common ancestor? Let's see the bones, the pictures and the videos. LOL!

You fail science.

 

[Dante]

At least we have a book. What do you have? Nothing. Talk about lazy!

A book?



Muslims have a book too, as do Sufis and Hindu's and...

 

[Dante]

And, where is evidence of this so called common ancestor? Let's see the bones, the pictures and the videos. LOL!

Science advances:

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution​

Along path leads from the origins of primitive "life," which existed at least 3.5 billion years ago, to the profusion and diversity of life that exists today. This path is best understood as a product of evolution.

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[ChristisKing]

Classic example of conservatives only being able to engage in bad faith. In this specific example, the point of this conservative being anti-science is due to how conservatism as an ideology is against the idea of empiricism and would much rather fall back on appeals to authority. Which is more favorable for conservatives since just waving a book around that they have not read and declaring things as true or false is way way way easier than doing an actual science.

Conservatism is the default stance you take when you are lazy and slow.

Where exactly did I say that I was anti-science? When science gives me something that I agree with because there are facts involved I say so.

 

[Kyrion]

Where exactly did I say that I was anti-science? When science gives me something that I agree with because there are facts involved I say so.

Which brings us to the only actual interesting question here. Which is why you prefer to do the lazy authoritarian argument instead of doing real science?

Real science is actually quite fun and interesting.

 

[ChristisKing]

Which brings us to the only actual interesting question here. Which is why you prefer to do the lazy authoritarian argument instead of doing real science?

Real science is actually quite fun and interesting.

So where's your argument? In the words of the late, great, Charlie Kirk,... Prove me wrong.

 

[Leo123]

Science advances:

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution​

Along path leads from the origins of primitive "life," which existed at least 3.5 billion years ago, to the profusion and diversity of life that exists today. This path is best understood as a product of evolution.

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf

Life did not evolve from nothing.

 

[ChristisKing]

Life did not evolve from nothing.

Exactly as I'm not against evolution I'm against evolution being the source of life.

 

[Kyrion]

So where's your argument? In the words of the late, great, Charlie Kirk,... Prove me wrong.

Try again. Why do you prefer the lazy authoritarian argument instead of doing actual real science?

 

[Kyrion]

Life did not evolve from nothing.

You're falling for the bad faith bait. He knows that he is wrong, as he is just pretending otherwise to upset you.

 

[ChristisKing]

Try again. Why do you prefer the lazy authoritarian argument instead of doing actual real science?

Why don't you do real actual science yourself then?

 

[ChristisKing]

You're falling for the bad faith bait. He knows that he is wrong, as he is just pretending otherwise to upset you.

I'm a woman although I realize that you probably don't know what that is.

 

[Dr.Destructo]

First off, theres TONS of proof on evolution, and absolutely NONE on religious fairy tales.

Second, an HONEST scientist will tell you that how old they think everything is, is just THEORY and GUESSWORK.
They have no clue how old this planet is, as they have changed their minds every year since science became a "thing".

The fake scientists can tell you how old everything is until they spontaniously combust.........it does not make them right or correct. If any scientist tells you the have a "definitive answer", they are liars, cheats, frauds, and scam artists.

 

[Leo123]

You're falling for the bad faith bait. He knows that he is wrong, as he is just pretending otherwise to upset you.

Define 'bad faith bait.'