TV Schedule

Atheistic evolution challenged - by Ravi Zacharias

  2. shadowtrekker
  3. related topics
the problem with scientists is that they are poor philosophers

I hope people will listen and then comment intelligently on what they believe instead of throwing it out just from reading the title
shadowtrekker

22 responses // Atheistic evolution challenged - by Ravi Zacharias

  • Sounds like paid conservative blogging to me from an anti human rights, anticonstitutionalist, animal killing, antienvironmentalist, war monger. "God bless"
    menmykoko
  • Menmykoko- Where did that comment come from? this video addresses done of that. Are you a robot?
    shadowtrekker
  • All morality is game theory. You do not need the concept (more life delusion) of "god" to justify not murdering, not raping, not looting, and the golden rule.

    This video is such a disgrace. Religion is willful ignorance and apathy. To theists: you are my enemy, and make no mistake, I am yours.

    XVX for life, R.A.S.H. 'til death.
    aquamammal
    1 response to this
  • Lets look at some of his key arguments.

    First off, he is weak in attacking the concept of chance when it comes to the development of the brain. If he had any good idea he would attack the evolution on the very source of life. That is evolutions weakest point, going from organic separate components that are not living, to cells.

    Second, his discussion on the philosophy of truth is flawed. Truth is not absolute, EVER! Truth is subjective and as a result is determined by each persons perception by at least some extent. He is arguing truth not from a philosophical point of view, but from an extremists point of view. And to an extremist of any religion or lack thereof, the truth is only as they see it, and that is the only way the truth can be. To argue my point I'll use a car accident. It is a fact that many people saw this car accident because it happened on a street with lots of foot traffic in a small town. However, depending upon each persons vantage point and how much attention they were paying at the time of the collision, many of the people will have a different recollection of the accident. Some, or even many, might contradict other statements, but no one is lying. Each person would be telling the truth according to how they perceived the accident. It is because of their perceptions that the truth varies, and does not necessarily match the facts.

    Given this mans arguments I conclude that it is potentially less stressful or in some way makes people feel like there is a bigger force out there believe in intelligent design. And it is everyones right to do so should they wish it; however, it does not disprove atheist evolution, and until one religion is proven correct, evolution should be taught in public schools as if there were no God or gods at all.
    Varex_Sythe
  • Varex -- you made an absolute statement by saying that truth is never absolute. funny

    the car accident - when a car gets into an accident it only happens one way, the accident doesn't change if people have different perceptions, it's the perceptions that change, not the accident.

    the truth about honesty is that your honesty might be wrong, even though you are being honest. have you ever made an honest decision only later to learn that it was the wrong decision?
    shadowtrekker
    1 response to this
  • creationism is a religious belief. evolution is a collection of scientific facts that have been proven over the past century and are completely accepted by the scientific community. There is no "versus" because there is no "debate".
    Colonial_Zombie
    4 responses to this
  • The case of the case of the Brontosaurus was nothing more than a case of misnaming a creature or changing it's name. The fossils of the Brontosaurus were the same fossils of the Apatasaurus. The fossils are still the same, some schmuck either incorrectly named a fossil skeleton that he/she thought was a new creature, or the name simply changed. Kinda like how Jim and James are supposed to be the same name even though they are not.
    Varex_Sythe
    3 responses to this
  • Varex---

    truth and fact aren't the same? ok, sure whatever you say

    Truth is, by definition, the extent of all truisms. Everything that is true is part of truth. In every trial, the man is either guilty or innocent, never both, never neither. Despite what the fallible court may rule, a truth exists. Hidden from all human knowledge, perhaps, but true nonetheless. The thing that is true is also a fact. Fact, in scientific terms is something that is *observably* true, but not different in substance from truth.
    shadowtrekker
  • I'd rather stick with chance than worshiping an invisible man in the clounds who claims he loves me and if i dont love him back im going to burn in a pit of fire i'd like to ask this man when did his "god" make the fossils?
    LizIsCitizenErased
  • I will yield to a draw on the concept of truth because of this quote by Wikipedia.

    "The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.[1] The term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree. Various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history."

    For the full link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
    Varex_Sythe
    1 response to this
  • Varex - You know your argument is on the ropes when you trust Wikipedia for your research... Again, as Shadowtrekker noted earlier, an Absolute statement has been made in the definition of truth...

    Science should be about the search for truth, not the search for 'materialistic explanations'. I don't mind an argument, but it appears that people replying to Shadowtrekker are not providing any real science or facts behind their arguments, but merely seem opposed to the theological ramifications of such arguments.

    As far as the theory of evolution goes, it may be fine to teach it as that, theory, however the last 50 years of scientific advances have shown that the major icons of evolution that we were taught in school are fakes...

    -The Miller experiment (Used incorrect chemicals to produce desired results, organic molecules - The molecules produced were actually formaldehyde, and cyanide, not exactly conducive to creating life...)

    -Darwin's Tree of Life (the "Cambrian Explosion" upended the tree, fossil record shows a singular, massive appearance of most of the major animal phyla that are alive today, rather than a slow, steady increase of complex organisms)

    - Haeckel's Embryo's (Drawings of embryo's were faked)

    - 4 winged fruit fly (carefully bred from 3 artificially maintained mutant strains - exceptionally unlikely to occur in nature, and results in handicapped flies that have difficulty mating...)

    These "facts" are still being taught today, Haeckel was exposed in the 1860's, yet still rates a mention in science textbooks! In a classroom children should be allowed access to correct factual material, regardless of where the facts may point theologically. What sort of future scientists are we going to create, if all they are taught is, ignore these results, they do not fit the hypothesis we wish to prove....Not exactly the scientific method is it?
    Jono31
  • Despite these things, if you are going to worship Darwin, take some time and read some of his material - In Origin of Species, Darwin states that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". Well, a lot has happened since then, and low and behold, irreducibly complex systems have been discovered, and I don't hear any Neo-Darwinist's taking his advice...
    Cilium, bacterial flaggellum, intracellular transport systems, and even that little thing called "Blood Clotting" that saves our asses every day. All irreducibly complex, and not a single one can be adequately explained by naturalistic means.

    By now, Neo-Darwinist's will be shouting: "Natural selection, Natural selection did it!", however need I remind you that natural selection only works on existing systems that are operating, and then only gets rid of components, it CANNOT create new systems or components. So you still need to account for the creation of NEW DNA from somewhere, and then again the NEW protein components, which then need to be assembled into the correct configuration and matched, in order for the system to become operational. As stated earlier, if any of these mentioned systems are not operating correctly from the start, the cell/organism dies.... No time for further "evolution". The need to debate fossil records is gone when you consider the reality of these facts.

    If you blood doesn't clot when you're cut = you die
    If it clots someplace else in your body = you die
    If it doesn't clot fast enough = you die
    If the clot isn't confined to the area = you die
    If the clot isn't the right size for the cut = you die

    As you can see, there is no room for error, or successive modifications with these systems. As for Darwin's Theory - It has broken down -

    But these simple facts are ignored because people are not looking for truth, but a theologically pleasing / non confronting theory, and use what they want to be true to dismiss valid arguments.

    No one's asking you to accept Jesus or God, an argument based on science & philosophy is there for you to rebut, give it a go...
    Jono31

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.