The "theory" of evolution

[Anonymous No.9038170]

Is there any coming back from the damage it's done?

[Anonymous No.9038207]

>>9038170
Is this a forced meme or just regular shitposting?

[Anonymous No.9039160]

>>9038170
I doubt you even know what "theory" means, leave this board you pathetic brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9039164]

>>9039160
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

[Anonymous No.9039194]

>>9039164
please no one bite this obvious bait, let this retarded forced thread die

[Anonymous No.9039742]

>>9038170
Lrn2theory fgt pls

[Anonymous No.9039768]

>>9039164
I'll bite...

No one said your argument was wrong *because* you're an idiot. That would be an ad hominem. Furthermore, you didn't actually put forward an argument of any kind. Lastly, theories in science are different than theories outside of science. What you're referring to is a hypothesis, which, in some cases, can be a random guess. However, the hypothesis of evolution wasn't a random guess and it stood the test of time, and was eventually known as a theory because of the vast amounts of evidence supporting it. (Gravity is a theory, just so you know.)

In conclusion, please stop trolling.

[Anonymous No.9039786]

>>9038170
>Video: Dr Greg Bahnsen on the impossibility and unscientific nature of evolution
https://youtu.be/9nf0gayCSG8

[Anonymous No.9039788]

>>9039786
ard ▼ Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

Return Catalog Bottom
Update Auto
Post a Reply

View Announcement
...Anonymous
Evolutionary View Dismantled
07/15/17(Sat)21:59:33 No.9039500
98 KB
98 KB JPG
>Video: Dr Greg Bahnsen on the impossibility and unscientific nature of evolution
https://youtu.be/9nf0gayCSG8 [Open]
...Anonymous
07/15/17(Sat)23:20:21 No.9039673
For example: You look at the mathematical improbability of abigoenesis (which there is no actual evidence for, as detailed in The Mystery of Life's Origin and other studies on the problematic theory of chemical evolution, etc.) and may say, "Yes, it is utterly astronomical, and yet that does not mean it cannot have happened!"
Another example: The Secularist/Materialist worldview proposes that the foundational elements of all matter (whatever particular substances which would eventually develop into everything that exists, from storm clouds to DNA) popped (or banged) into existence from absolute nothing - at no cause.
Everything popped into being from nothing at the cause of nothing. There is no reason it came into existence (which would denote purpose and thus implies something to give purpose) and there is no cause - since any change in state only occurs when there is a catalyst for change, and for there to be a cause for everything to pop into existence means there would need to at least be something to bring about the "explosion" of existence.
In short, the godless worldview essentially proposes that everything exploded into existence (and began to develop) from nothing without cause.

[Anonymous No.9039792]

>>9039788
>muh multiverse bubble theory
There are too many things wrong with this to even begin, but suffice to say that there is no evidence for such a thing nor can we hide behind whatever vague theories of quantum mechanics to postulate that maybe, just maybe, it is rational to believe the irrational. Also it implies an unending cycle, which itself does not explain where the cycle originated and leads you right back to the idea of an eternal cycle. Again, not only is there no evidence but it is irrational since we witness that every created thing has a beginning and an ending. But men who hold to a secularist/materialist presupposition would sooner cling to the unfounded and improbable than actually apply the same standard they use against Christ to their own asinine belief.
TL;DR A man will always choose to believe what he chooses to believe, even if it is utterly irrational and bears no evidence supporting it, if what he believes stems from an untested presupposition - that is, perhaps not tested by external "scientific" evidences but at least tested by basic sense. No one who lives in this world can live faithfully according to the Secularist/Materialist presupposition. It relies on randomness as the foundation of development and the origin of existence itself yet repeatedly attempts consistency in conveying its ideas - which goes against the very notion of randomness, which does not have consistency (patterns are consistent, randomness is not, and when randomness becomes a pattern the inconsistent has become consistent).
The Secularist/Materialist has no answer for beauty, the laws of logic, or even the laws of physics - and it is all well and good to say that morality is subjective until you get gangraped.

[Anonymous No.9039869]

>>9039786
>3:57 in
he has literally said nothing besides chain together adjective ad hominems to general groups

i just wanted to hear the opposing side, like he says is so important, but it seems like i'm simply getting a non-christian smear job

[Anonymous No.9039873]

>>9039768
Did you really have to do that?

[Anonymous No.9039877]

>>9038170
Guys if you are going to bite this nonsense can you at least sage?

[Anonymous No.9039904]

>>9039786
>calvinist philosopher talking against evolution
ayy

[Anonymous No.9039946]

>>9039768
>a hypothesis, which, in some cases, can be a random guess
No, an hypothesis must be a testable
educated guess, of which OP failed 2-of-2.

[Anonymous No.9040311]

the damage is done, the best you can do is have kids and educate them yourself, but don't worry, theres a reason why a sizeable majority of americans still believe in the bible and flat earth regardless if they were forced to learn it as fact in schol