What's new
  • Welcome to PHCorner forums. Take a moment to sign up and gain unlimited access and extra privileges that guests are not entitled to, such as: All that and more! Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!

Trivia Ginamit Ba ng Diyos ang Ebolusyon Para Magkaroon ng Iba’t Ibang Uri ng Buhay?

Gentleman007

Elite
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
1,317
Reaction
1,308
Ang sagot ng Bibliya
Hindi. Maliwanag na sinasabi ng Bibliya na nilalang ng Diyos ang mga tao at ang iba’t ibang “uri” ng hayop at halaman. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) Sinasabi nito na ang buong pamilya ng tao ay nanggaling kina Adan at Eva, ang ating unang mga magulang. (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) Hindi sinusuportahan ng Bibliya ang teoriya na ginamit ng Diyos ang ebolusyon para magkaroon ng iba’t ibang uri ng buhay, na tinatawag na teistikong ebolusyon. Pero ang totoo, hindi tinututulan ng Bibliya ang sinasabi ng siyensiya na may pagkakasari-sari sa bawat uri ng buhay. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Ginamit ba ng Diyos ang ebolusyon?
Ang terminong “teistikong ebolusyon” ay tumutukoy sa iba’t ibang ideya. Ayon sa Encyclopædia Britannica, itinataguyod ng terminong ito ang ideya na “ang isa sa ginamit ng Diyos para magkaroon ng iba pang buhay ay ang natural selection.”
Kasama sa turo ng teistikong ebolusyon ang mga ideya na:
  • Lahat ng buháy na organismo ay nanggaling sa iisang organismo na matagal nang umiral.
  • Ang isang uri ng buhay ay puwedeng mag-evolve tungo sa ibang uri ng buhay, na karaniwan nang tinatawag na macroevolution.
  • Ginamit ng Diyos ang mga prosesong ito.
Kaayon ba ng Bibliya ang ebolusyon?
Ipinapahiwatig ng teistikong ebolusyon na hindi lahat ng ulat sa Bibliya tungkol sa paglalang sa aklat ng Genesis ay tama. Pero tinukoy ni Jesus ang ulat ng Genesis bilang totoong mga pangyayari. (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) Sinasabi ng Bibliya na bago naging tao si Jesus, nabuhay siya sa langit at katulong siya ng Diyos sa paggawa ng “lahat ng bagay.” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) Kaya naman, ang ideya na ginamit ng Diyos ang ebolusyon para magkaroon ng iba’t ibang uri ng buhay ay hindi kaayon ng itinuturo ng Bibliya.
Masasabi bang ebolusyon ang kakayahang mag-adapt ng mga hayop at halaman sa kapaligiran nito?
Hindi sinasabi ng Bibliya kung paano nagkakaroon ng pagkakasari-sari sa iisang uri ng buhay. At hindi rin nito kinokontra ang katotohanan na ang iba’t ibang uri ng hayop at halaman na nilikha ng Diyos ay nagkakaroon ng pagkakasari-sari dahil sa pagpapalahi o pag-a-adapt sa kapaligiran. Para sa ilan, ang gayong maliliit na pagbabago ay isang anyo ng ebolusyon, pero ang totoo, wala talagang bagong uri ng buhay ang nabubuo.
 

sucre2

Established
Meron ka bang peer reviewed na patunay sa mga pinagsasasabi mo?kasi kung wala claim lang yan at hindi totoo.ang evolution as of the moment ang pinagbabatayan ng science sa kung paano tayo nagexist sa mundo.Si Jehova nga hanggang ngayon e walang patunay na totoo as in zero 0 wala nada!
 
Comment

sucre2

Established
Meron ka bang peer reviewed na patunay sa mga pinagsasasabi mo?kasi kung wala claim lang yan at hindi totoo.ang evolution as of the moment ang pinagbabatayan ng science sa kung paano tayo nagexist sa mundo.Si Jehova nga hanggang ngayon e walang patunay na totoo as in zero 0 wala nada!
 
Comment

sucre2

Established
Ang KATOTOHANAN walang patunay kahit isa na totoo ang biblical creation,dahil kung meron malamang meron ng nanalo ng nobel prize sa mga naniniwala.Amen Puroluyya!
 
M
MissGelyyyy
napatunayan na ba ng mga taong hindi naniniwala sa Bible (na nagkamit ng nobel prize) na walang Diyos?
Kase as far as I know hindi din naman 😅
Kung naniniwala sila sa "truth" na walang Diyos pero hindi naman nila napatunayan, bakit naging truth yun para sakanila? 😅
 
Subalit ang paniniwala sa Diyos ay hindi bulag na pananampalataya, yamang napakaraming ebidensiya sa pag-iral ng Diyos. (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) Ganito ang sinabi ng astronomong si Allan Sandage: “Sa palagay ko ay talagang imposible na ang gayong kaayusan [sa uniberso] ay nagmula sa kaguluhan. Tiyak na may pinagmulan ang kaayusang ito. Isang misteryo sa akin ang Diyos, pero siya ang paliwanag sa himala ng pag-iral, kung bakit may umiiral sa halip na wala.” Sinabi ni apostol Pablo sa mga Kristiyano sa Roma na ang “di-nakikitang mga katangian [ng Diyos] ay malinaw na nakikita mula pa sa pagkalalang ng sanlibutan, sapagkat napag-uunawa ang mga ito sa pamamagitan ng mga bagay na ginawa, maging ang kaniyang walang-hanggang kapangyarihan at pagka-Diyos, anupat wala silang [mga di-naniniwala] maidadahilan.” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.)
 
Comment

Yortz

Honorary Poster
Meron ka bang peer reviewed na patunay sa mga pinagsasasabi mo?kasi kung wala claim lang yan at hindi totoo.ang evolution as of the moment ang pinagbabatayan ng science sa kung paano tayo nagexist sa mundo.Si Jehova nga hanggang ngayon e walang patunay na totoo as in zero 0 wala nada!
Did you observed the evolution personally? Yung big bang napatunayan niyo na ba? Lahat ng theories how the whole universe started are still a "THEORY" :)
 
1 Comment
C
Covid-19? Alam moba na sa hayop lang dati nakakahawa yun? Kaso nagevolve at nag adapt sa environment kaya pati tao nahahawaan. At alam mo narin na merong bagong strand ng covid dahil sa evolution?

At yung antibiotic resistance bacteria. Wala pa noon dati ngunit nung naging malawakan na pag gamit ng antibiotic, nagevolve ang bacteria para di tablan ng antibiotic para makasurvive (insert survival of the fittest)

We can prove evolution through scientific method.

And lol. Hypothesis ibig mong sabihin sa theory. Scientific theory naman ang evolution.

Scientific theory definition, a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation
 

Eseru

Elite
"Did you observed the evolution personally?"

Evolution can be observed even today.

With your arm on a flat surface, push your thumb against your pinky and tip your hand slightly up. If you see a raised band in the middle of your wrist, you've got a vestigial muscle in your forearm.

1599272719257.png
That tendon you see connects to the palmaris longus, a muscle that around 10-15% of people are missing on one or both of their arms. It doesn't make them any weaker though. There's no difference in grip strength. In fact, it's one of the first tendons that surgeons will take out so they can use it in reconstructive and cosmetic surgeries.

You can find the palmaris longus across mammal species but it's most developed among those that use their forelimbs to move around.

In primates, that means themuscle is longer in lemurs and monkeys and shorter in chimps, gorillas, and other apes that don't do a lot of scrambling through trees.

It's not the only leftover muscle that we've got. Look at the three that are attached to our outer ear.

1599273030200.png

We can't get much movement out of these muscles, especially compared to some of our mammal relatives who use them to locate the sources of sounds. Presumably this would have been quite helpful for early nocturnal mammals.

In humans, you can still detect the remnants of this adaptation with electrodes. In one study, researchers recorded a spike of activity in the ear muscle cells in response to a sudden sound. Not enogh to move the ear, but detectable. An you can probably guess the location of the sound based on the results - it came from a speaker to the left of the study subjects.

1599273268422.png

This is the subjects left ear subconciously trying (and failing) to pivot toward the sound.

You can see another futile effort by our vestigial body parts when you get goosebumps.

When we're cold, tiny muscles attached to our body hairs contract, pulling the hair upright which causes the surrounding skin to form a bump.

1599273445873.png

For our furry mammal relatives, the raised hair increases the amount of space for insulation, helping them stay warm. Birds can do this too. You've probably seen a puffy pigeon on a cold day.

Adrenaline is one of the hormones involved in the body's response to cold temperatures, and it's also part of the fight or flight response. So it helps some animals appear larger when they're threatened. And it may be why surprising and emotional turns in music can give some people goosebumps.

And then there's our tail. At the end of our spine are a set of fused vertebrae - some people have 3, some have 5.

1599273737042.png
We call it the tailbone. It now serves as an anchor for some pelvic muscles but it's also what's left of our ancestor's tails.

Every one of us actually had a tail at one point.

1599274007539.png

When the basic body plan is being laid ot at around 4 weeks of gestation, humans embryos closely resemble embryos of other vertebrates. And that includes a tail with a 10-12 developing vertebrae. In many other animals, it continues to develop into a proper tail. But in humans and other apes, the cells in the tail dies a few weeks after they appear.

Very rarely though, a mutation allows the ancestral blueprint to prevail and a human baby will be born with a true vestigial tail.

1599274218768.png
1599274175598.png
 

Attachments

Last edited:
E
Eseru
I'm doing research based on the things written on the Watchtower publication. And boy oh boy, the deeper I go in, the darker it gets.

kaya pala litung lito ako dun sa mga quotations and references, and yung meaning nung ibang words, may sarili pa pala silang meaning, bukod sa kung anong nasa dictionary.
 
Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Could the more than 200 different kinds of cells that make up your body really form by accident?
Your body is one of the most complex structures in the universe. It is made up of some 100 trillion tiny cells—bone cells, blood cells, brain cells, to name a few.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. In fact, there are more than 200 different types of cells in your body.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Despite their amazing diversity in shape and function, your cells form an intricate, integrated network. The Internet, with its millions of computers and high-speed data cables, is clumsy in comparison. No human invention can compete with the technical brilliance evident in even the most basic of cells. How did the cells that make up the human body come into existence?
What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.
In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
What does the Bible say? The Bible states that life on earth is the product of an intelligent mind. Note the Bible’s clear logic: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) Another Bible passage says: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions. . . . There are moving things without number, living creatures, small as well as great.”—You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Could even a “simple” cell really arise from nonliving chemicals?
What does the evidence reveal? Advances in microbiology have made it possible to peer into the awe-inspiring interior of the simplest living prokaryotic cells known. Evolutionary scientists theorize that the first living cells must have looked something like these cells.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
If the theory of evolution is true, it should offer a plausible explanation of how the first “simple” cell formed by chance. On the other hand, if life was created, there should be evidence of ingenious design even in the smallest of creatures. Why not take a tour of a prokaryotic cell? As you do so, ask yourself whether such a cell could arise by chance.
THE CELL’S PROTECTIVE WALL
To tour a prokaryotic cell, you would have to shrink to a size that is hundreds of times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Keeping you out of the cell is a tough, flexible membrane that acts like a brick and mortar wall surrounding a factory. It would take some 10,000 layers of this membrane to equal the thickness of a sheet of paper. But the membrane of a cell is much more sophisticated than the brick wall. In what ways?
Like the wall surrounding a factory, the membrane of a cell shields the contents from a potentially hostile environment. However, the membrane is not solid; it allows the cell to “breathe,” permitting small molecules, such as oxygen, to pass in or out. But the membrane blocks more complex, potentially damaging molecules from entering without the cell’s permission. The membrane also prevents useful molecules from leaving the cell. How does the membrane manage such feats?
Think again of a factory. It might have security guards who monitor the products that enter and leave through the doorways in the factory wall. Similarly, the cell membrane has special protein molecules embedded in it that act like the doors and the security guards.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
The cell membrane has “security guards” that allow only specific substances to pass in or out
Some of these proteins (1) have a hole through the middle of them that allows only specific types of molecules in and out of the cell. Other proteins are open on one side of the cell membrane (2) and closed on the other. They have a docking site (3) shaped to fit a specific substance. When that substance docks, the other end of the protein opens and releases the cargo through the membrane (4). All this activity is happening on the surface of even the simplest of cells.
INSIDE THE FACTORY
Imagine that you have been allowed past the “security guard” and are now inside the cell. The interior of a prokaryotic cell is filled with a watery fluid that is rich in nutrients, salts, and other substances. The cell uses these raw ingredients to manufacture the products it needs. But the process is not haphazard. Like an efficiently run factory, the cell organizes thousands of chemical reactions so that they take place in a specific order and according to a set timetable.
A cell spends a lot of its time making proteins. How does it do so? First, you would see the cell make about 20 different basic building blocks called amino acids. These building blocks are delivered to the ribosomes (5), which may be likened to automated machines that link the amino acids in a precise order to form a specific protein. Just as the operations of a factory might be governed by a central computer program, many of the functions of a cell are governed by a “computer program,” or code, known as DNA (6). From the DNA, the ribosome receives a copy of detailed instructions that tell it which protein to build and how to build it (7).
What happens as the protein is made is nothing short of amazing! Each one folds into a unique three-dimensional shape (8). It is this shape that determines the specialized job that the protein will do. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. Picture a production line where engine parts are being assembled. Each part needs to be precisely constructed if the engine is to work. Similarly, if a protein is not precisely constructed and folded to exactly the right shape, it will not be able to do its work properly and may even damage the cell.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
The Cell “Factory”—How Proteins Are Made: Like an automated factory, the cell is full of machines that assemble and deliver complex products
How does the protein find its way from where it was made to where it is needed? Each protein the cell makes has a built-in “address tag” that ensures that the protein will be delivered to where it is needed. Although thousands of proteins are built and delivered each minute, each one arrives at the correct destination.
Why do these facts matter? The complex molecules in the simplest living thing cannot reproduce alone. Outside the cell, they break down. Inside the cell, they cannot reproduce without the help of other complex molecules. For example, enzymes are needed to produce a special energy molecule called adenosine triphosphate (ATP), but energy from ATP is needed to produce enzymes. Similarly, DNA (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. discusses this molecule) is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA. Also, other proteins can be made only by a cell, but a cell can be made only with proteins. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Microbiologist Radu Popa does not agree with the Bible’s account of creation. Yet, in 2004 he asked: “How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. He also stated: “The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
If this skyscraper must collapse because it has a flimsy foundation, must not the theory of evolution collapse because it has no explanation for the origin of life?
What do you think? The theory of evolution tries to account for the origin of life on earth without the necessity of divine intervention. However, the more that scientists discover about life, the less likely it appears that it could arise by chance. To sidestep this dilemma, some evolutionary scientists would like to make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the question of the origin of life. But does that sound reasonable to you?
The theory of evolution rests on the notion that a long series of fortunate accidents produced life to start with. It then proposes that another series of undirected accidents produced the astonishing diversity and complexity of all living things. However, if the foundation of the theory is missing, what happens to the other theories that are built on this assumption? Just as a skyscraper built without a foundation would collapse, a theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life will crumble.
After briefly considering the structure and function of a “simple” cell, what do you see—evidence of many accidents or proof of brilliant design? If you are still unsure, take a closer look at the “master program” that controls the functions of all cells.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
HOW FAST CAN A CELL REPRODUCE?
Some bacteria can make replicas of themselves within 20 minutes. Each cell copies all the controlling “computer programs.” Then it divides. If it had unlimited access to fuel, just one cell could increase in number exponentially. At that rate, it would take only two days to produce a clump of cells with a weight more than 2,500 times greater than that of the earth.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. Cells that are more complex can also replicate quickly. For example, when you were developing in your mother’s womb, new brain cells formed at the astounding rate of 250,000 per minute!You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Human manufacturers often have to sacrifice quality to produce an item at a fast pace. How is it possible, then, that cells can reproduce so fast and so accurately if they are the product of undirected accidents?
FACTS AND QUESTIONS
  • Fact: The extraordinarily complex molecules that make up a cell—DNA, RNA, proteins—seem designed to work together.
    Question: What seems more likely to you? Did unintelligent evolution construct the intricate machines depicted on page 10, or were those machines the product of an intelligent mind?
  • Fact: Some respected scientists say that even a “simple” cell is far too complex to have arisen by chance on earth.
    Question: If some scientists are willing to speculate that life came from an extraterrestrial source, what is the basis for ruling out God as that Source?
 
E
Eseru
TLDR;

Science has some 'plausible' explanation for how the first simple cell was created. It's just that 'some' people turn a blind eye and disregard the given 'plausible' explanations.
Scientists have recreated and have reproduced chemicals and components that were previously thought as impossible to recreate. But then again, it cannot be? No? It is 'imposibru' for an explanation to be created/given. Some things should always stay 'unknown' so we could insert 'this or that belief'.

Science has time and time again, albeit it takes so many years to perform, produces information that supports their claims about evolution. But again, to some, They cannot, should not, would not believe the given information, no matter how many experts on the field swear on it.

Science is doing its own thing, it's not trying to disprove God's existence. They just want to know where and how life began.

"To some, the concept of "God" is subjective. Your god is different from someone else's god.
Gods can be "ultimate", "better", "man", single, point, anything really. Because a "God" is just a term for the ultimate "thing".

Scientists, so far, have not come to any theories that need God or any evidence that leads to the existence of a higher being.

So scientists aren't looking for it.

The claim of the existence of God is made by religious followers. Thing is, they need God to prove many of the things in their religious texts. However, they don't provide evidence that proves their theories.

Thus, the existence of their Gods remain that: unproved theories.

It isn't up to the scientists who find no need of a God to prove that concept, it is up to the religious to prove it.

So in essence: We're not saying that God doesn't exist. We're saying we don't have evidence or suggestion that he exists."


--- Got that from a comment from another person and I liked it.
--- No, if you're asking if I'm an Athiest, the answer is no, I don't think I am. For me, there's still a being or beings that may have created life on the entire universe. Why do I believe in a higher being whilst still believing in evolution and big bang? Am I a hypocrite? ....Maybe? IDK. But why can't Science and FAITH/BELIEF (yes I'm not saying Religion, because religion to me is a mere system. Having faith on something or someone is already enough, that and trying to be an a$$ to another person) go along with each other?

Anyway, at the end of the day, life in the universe will eventually end. And it doesn't really matter what or whom we believe in. The only thing that matters is that we have faith onto something when we're alive so we can at least keep ourselves from getting insane from the immense unknown variables in life.

But yeah, I thank you for all the long articles that you've posted, from time to time, I'll do my own research on them. And something that you have or another one from your religious group has posted before have piqued my interest. It's about the religion of Islam...

Muhammad, however, came with no supernatural proofs of his divine commission. Time and again his critics complained of this and repeatedly he told them that his work was not that of producing signs but merely to preach, and that his lack of signs was for the purpose of testing their faith. But what is faith without proof? Anyone could claim to be sent of God. Moses and Christ proved it by the performance of many miracles, but where were Muhammad’s miracles? He confessed in the Quran to having none.—See Suras 2:118; 10:38; 11:13; 6:109, Ali.

What is faith without proof? WHUT?
And how can you question someone else's religion when your own religion clearly has plenty of unproved information as well??????????
 
Last edited:

Eseru

Elite
There are so many observable facts from so many different fields of study that the only way we can even begin to talk about them is to group them into categories or lines of evidence.

1599274684796.png

We'll focus on Evolution's first claim that: All living things on Earth are related.

We cannot tackle the entire tree of life at once (after all there's an estimated 8.7 Million species alive today), so instead, we'll focus most of our attention on one fairly small but fascinating branch of the evolutionary tree: Cetaceans. This branch includes whales, dolphins, and porpoises.

Biologists claim that all these creatures are closely related and that the entire group evolved from an ancient 4 legged land mammal.

Let's look at the facts. We'll start with a few from the field of Comparative Anatomy: the study of differences and similarities between living things.

Whales live in water and from a distance, they sort of look like a giant fish. A close inspection of their anatomy, however, tells us a very different story. WHales, just like land mammals but unlike fish have placentas and give live birth, they feed milk to their young, they are warm-blooded (which is extremely rare for a fish), and whales do not have gills, instead, just like us, they breathe air with 2, fully developed lungs.

Whales don't seem to have noses like mammals do. Instead, they breathe through blowholes coming at the tops of their heads. Some whales have two blowholes that almost look like nostrils, but dolphins and porpoises only have one. Surprisingly, if you look at their skulls, you'll find that the blowholes split into 2 nasal passages inside the head.

1599275305018.png
Could it be that the blowhole is actually a highly modified mammal nose? It looks that way but we'll need more evidence to be sure.

Many whales have hair, just like land mammals. In this photograph, you can see the whiskers od this baby gray whale.

1599275508677.png

Strangely, whales have arm, wrist, hand, and finger bones inside their front flippers.

1599275606401.png

Here's the photo of these bones, the same bones that bats, hippos, and people have in their front appendages: One bone, two bones, wrist bones, and finger bones.
1599275718177.png 1599275747524.png 1599275818073.png

Modern whales do not have back legs but they do have a pair of strange tiny bones where the hind leg should be. Here's a picture of these bones from a bowhead whale.

1599275946953.png

They almost look like a shriveled hip, thigh, and shin bones. This one even has what looks like a deformed ball and socket joint between the hip and thigh bone, just like the ball and socket joint in your own hip. Is this resemblance a mere coincidence or are these real leg bones? Perhaps leftover from the whale's evolutionary history?

Before we draw any bold conclusions, let's see id a completely separate line of evidence will confirm our suspicions.

Embryology is the study of how creatures develop before being born or hatching from an egg.

Here we see a dolphin and a human embryo, side by side, at similar stages of development.

1599276373576.png

Notice that they both have what look like arm buds, and leg buds. In whales, they grow for a while but then stop, effectively fading away as the rest of the whale continues to grow.

These are all photographs of a common dolphin at different stages of development. Notice that early on, we see two nostrils grooves on the front of the face, just like you'd expect in a puppy or a human.
1599276593739.png
As the dolphin continues o grow, the nostril groves migrate to the top of the head and fuse together becoming a blowhole.

So far, we have multiple facts from two independent lines of evidence, comparative anatomy, and embryology both telling us the exact same story: The ancestors of whales were once 4 legged land creatures.

Will the fossil record act as a third witness confirming this idea?

These are two species of extinct basilosaurid whales.

1599277082479.png

These animals are known from multiple well-preserved skeletons. They appear to have lived side by side roughly 34 to 40 million years ago.

In this photo, we are looking down at the top of a basilosaurid skull. This is not a model or a cast, these are the actual bones which were pulled from the ground.

1599277130953.png

1599277162012.png
Notice that the nasal opening is not on the top of the head like those of modern whales, and not at the end of the snout-like those of most land mammals. Instead, their nostrils sit right in the middle, this is an intermediate species, exactly what the theory of evolution tells us we should find.

At the back end of the basilosaurid's body, there are small, yet fully developed hips, legs, ankle, feet and we suspect they had at least 3 toes though we've only found for the one.
1599277350070.png
These legs are far too small for walking on land but may have been useful for mating or for scratching away parasites and itchy skin.

Evolutionary theory tells us that the further we go back in time, the harder it will be to distinguish whales from regular land mammals.

Meet Maiacetus, one of which appears to be a *******t mother.
1599277635367.png
The hip bone of Maiacetus does seem sturdy enough to walk on land, but this animal is considered to be a whale for many reasons: Their skeletons have all been found among fossils of sea creatures, which tells us they live in the ocean. Their short legs combined with long flat fingers and toes, suggest they were strong swimmers with webbed hands and feet.

Here we see the bottom side of a Maiacetus jaw and skull as it looked at the dig site.
1599277694945.png
Her teeth match those of the Basilosaurid whales we saw earlier. And the unique structure of her middle ear bones, the bulbs behind her jaw, match those of Basilosaurid whales and modern whales.

Maiacetus appears to be a walking whale.

The fossils of many ancient whale-like mammals have been found, and people continue to find more. Together, these fossils blur the line between 4 legged land mammals and fully aquatic modern whales, solidifying the idea that whales indeed, evolved from land creatures.

Now let's look at the 4th line of evidence: DNA
DNA molecules contain chemical codes that act as recipes for living things. Without ever looking at bones, embryos, or anatomy, researchers can compare the DNA code of different living creatures to find out who is most closely related to who.

Whale DNA has been compared to all kinds of other animals: fish, sea lions, you name it. And so far, the closest genetic match is the pudgy, water-loving hippopotamus.

This does not mean that whales evolved from hippos, but if this genetic finding is correct, whales and hippos both evolved from a common ancestor which lived roughly 54 million years ago.
1599278192196.png

At first, the link between whales and hippos surprised researchers. Because whales are mainly carnivores - they eat things like fish and small crustaceans, while hippos are more vegetarian.

A closer look, however, reveals that hippos and whales, actually share many strange features, some of which may have come from their common ancestor.

Ancient walking whales have specially shaped ankle bones, found only in hippos and the close relatives of hippos.1599278424771.png
Just like whales, often give birth and even nurse their young underwater, they both have multi-chambered stomachs (which is common for herbivores but is almost unheard of in fish-eating mammals), they are both missing a coat fur, and here's a fun fact - whales and hippos are some of the only mammals on earth that have internal testicles.

There you have it, dozens of facts from 4 independent lines of evidence, all tell us the exact same story, whales evolved from 4 legged land mammals, but the history of whales is not the only evolutionary history that we've been able to work out.

We know from fossils, DNA, and embryology, and many other lines of evidence that bird wings are actually modified arms and claws. Birds evolve from dinosaur-like ancestors.

1599278721123.png

We can also clearly see that bat wings evolved from 5 fingered hands, very similar to those of monkeys and shrews. We found that humans share a fairly recent common ancestor with chimpanzees. That mammals evolve from reptile-like creatures. Those reptile-like creatures evolved from amphibian-like creatures, those amphibian-like creatures evolved from fish-like creatures, and fish, if you go back far enough, share a common ancestor with segmented worms.

To sum things up, thousands of observable facts from completely independent fields of study, are coming together to tell us the exact same story.

All living things on Earth are related.

This is a basic overview of the evidence for evolution, stated clearly.
 

Attachments

Comment
Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

Charles Darwin’s tree of life depicting species with common ancestors

Darwin thought that all life might be traced to a common ancestor. He imagined that the history of life on earth resembled a grand tree. Later, others believed that this “tree of life” started as a single trunk with the first simple cells. New species branched from the trunk and continued to divide into limbs, or families of plants and animals, and then into twigs, all the species within the families of plants and animals alive today. Is that really what happened?

What do many scientists claim? Many give the impression that the fossil record supports the theory of a common origin for life. They also claim that because all living things use similar “computer language,” or DNA, that all life must have evolved from a common ancestor.
What does the Bible say? The Genesis account states that plants, sea creatures, land animals, and birds were created “according to their kinds.” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) This description allows for variation within a “kind,” but it implies that there are fixed barriers separating the different kinds. The Bible account of creation also leads us to expect that new types of creatures would appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed.
What does the evidence reveal? Does the evidence support the Bible’s description of events, or was Darwin correct? What have discoveries over the past 150 years revealed?
DARWIN’S TREE CHOPPED DOWN
In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.
What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
WHAT ABOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD?
Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though, does the fossil evidence really show?
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.
In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” When was the Cambrian period?
Let us assume that the estimates of researchers are accurate. In that case, the history of the earth could be represented by a time line that stretches the length of a soccer field (1). At that scale, you would have to walk about seven eighths of the way down the field before you would come to what paleontologists call the Cambrian period (2). During a small segment of that period, the major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record. How suddenly do they appear? As you walk down the soccer field, all those different creatures pop up in the space of less than one step!
A time line the length of a soccer field shows the beginning of earth’s history to the so-called Cambrian explosion

The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
PROBLEMS WITH THE “PROOF”
Fossils as shown in some textbooks and shown to scale

Why do some textbooks change the scale of the fossils that they depict as following a proposed sequence?
Above left: scale of fossils as shown in some textbooks
Above right: real relative size
What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action? Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious.
First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.
A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
A graph showing supposed relationships between different kinds of animals

WHAT DOES THE “FILM” REALLY SHOW?
An article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. Consider the implications of that illustration.
A reel of film and a few frames from the film

If “95 frames” of the fossil record show that animals do not evolve from one type into another, why do paleontologists arrange the remaining “5 frames” to imply that they do?
Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion?
How does that illustration relate to the way evolutionists view the fossil record? For years, researchers did not acknowledge that the vast majority of fossils—the 95 frames of the movie—showed that species change very little over time. Why the silence about such important evidence? Author Richard Morris says: “Apparently paleontologists had adopted the orthodox idea of gradual evolutionary change and had held onto it, even when they discovered evidence to the contrary. They had been trying to interpret fossil evidence in terms of accepted evolutionary ideas.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”—In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117
What about evolutionists today? Could it be that they continue to place fossils in a certain order, not because such a sequence is well-supported by the majority of fossil and genetic evidence, but because doing so is in harmony with currently accepted evolutionary ideas?You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
What do you think? Which conclusion fits the evidence best? Consider the facts we have discussed so far.
  • The first life on earth was not “simple.”
  • The odds against even the components of a cell arising by chance are astronomical.
  • DNA, the “computer program,” or code, that runs the cell, is incredibly complex and gives evidence of a genius that far surpasses any program or information storage system produced by humans.
  • Genetic research shows that life did not originate from a single common ancestor. In addition, major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record.
In light of these facts, do you think it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence is in harmony with the Bible’s explanation of the origin of life? Many people, however, assert that science contradicts much of what the Bible says about creation. Is that true? What does the Bible really say?

The biological term phyla (singular, phylum) refers to a large group of animals that have the same distinctive body plan. One way that scientists classify all living things is by a seven-step system in which each step is more specific than the one before it. Step one is kingdom, the broadest category. Then come the categories phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. For example, the horse is categorized in the following way: kingdom, Animalia; phylum, Chordata; class, Mammalia; order, Perissodactyla; family, Equidae; genus, Equus; species, Caballus.
It should be noted that neither the New Scientist article nor Bapteste nor Rose mean to suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. Their point, rather, is that Darwin’s proposed tree of life, a mainstay of his theory, is not supported by the evidence. Such scientists still seek other explanations involving evolution.
Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.
Malcolm S. Gordon supports the teaching of evolution.
See, for example, the box “You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

FACTS AND QUESTIONS
  • Fact: Two of evolution’s fundamental ideas—that life has a common origin and that major new body types appear as a result of the slow accumulation of small changes—are being challenged by researchers who do not support the Bible account of creation.
    Question: Given the controversy over these pillars of Darwin’s theory, can his version of evolution honestly be referred to as scientific fact?
  • Fact: All living organisms share similarly designed DNA, the “computer language,” or code, that governs much of the shape and function of their cell or cells.
    Question: Could this similarity exist, not because they had the same ancestor, but because they had the same Designer?

What About Human Evolution?
A skull

Look up the topic of human evolution in many textbooks and encyclopedias and you will see a series of pictures—on one side a stooped, apelike creature followed by creatures that have progressively more upright posture and larger heads. At the end stands modern man. Such renderings along with sensational media reports of the discovery of so-called missing links give the impression that there is ample evidence that man evolved from apelike creatures. Are such assertions based on solid evidence? Consider what evolutionary researchers say about the following topics.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
WHAT THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE ACTUALLY SHOWS
Fact: At the beginning of the 20th century, all the fossils that were used to support the theory that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor could fit on a billiard table. Since then, the number of fossils used to support that theory has increased. Now it is claimed that they would fill a railroad boxcar.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. However, the vast majority of those fossils consist only of single bones and isolated teeth. Complete skulls—let alone complete skeletons—are rare.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Question: Has the increased number of fossils attributed to the human “family tree” settled the question among evolutionary experts as to when and how humans evolved from apelike creatures?
Answer: No. In fact, the opposite is true. When it comes to how these fossils should be classified, Robin Derricourt of the University of New South Wales, Australia, wrote in 2009: “Perhaps the only consensus now is that there is no consensus.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. In 2007 the science journal Nature published an article by the discoverers of another claimed link in the evolutionary tree, saying that nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF “MISSING LINKS”
Fact: The media often widely broadcasts the announcement that a new “missing link” has been discovered. For example, in 2009 a fossil dubbed Ida was unveiled with what one journal called “rock-star hype.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. Publicity included this headline in The Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom (UK): “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. However, just days later, the UK science journal New Scientist said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Question: Why is each unveiling of a new “missing link” given wide media attention, whereas the removal of that fossil from the “family tree” is hardly mentioned?
A fossil

Answer: Regarding those who make these discoveries, Robin Derricourt, quoted earlier, says: “The leader of a research team may need to over-emphasize the uniqueness and drama of a ‘discovery’ in order to attract research funding from outside the conventional academic sources, and they will certainly be encouraged in this by the print and electronic media, looking for a dramatic story.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
TEXTBOOK DRAWINGS AND MODELS OF APE-MEN
Fact: Depictions in textbooks and museums of the so-called ancestors of humans are often shown with specific facial features, skin color, and amount of hair. These depictions usually show the older “ancestors” with monkeylike features and the ones supposedly closer to humans with more humanlike facial features, skin tone, and hair.
Question: Can scientists reliably reconstruct such features based on the fossilized remains that they find?
Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expert Carl N. Stephan, who works at the Department of Anatomical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia, wrote: “The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested.” He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes “are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid.” His conclusion? “Any facial ‘reconstructions’ of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
DETERMINING INTELLIGENCE BY BRAIN SIZE
Fact: The brain size of a presumed ancestor of humans is one of the main ways by which evolutionists determine how closely or distantly the creature is supposed to be related to humans.
Question: Is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence?
Human and ape skulls

Answer: No. One group of researchers who used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so they “often feel on shaky ground.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. Why? Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
What do you think? Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?
What, though, about the humanlike fossils of the so-called Neanderthals, often portrayed as proof that a type of ape-man existed? Researchers are beginning to alter their view of what these actually were. In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.”You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Honest observers readily recognize that egos, money, and the need for media attention influence the way that “evidence” for human evolution is presented. Are you willing to put your trust in such evidence?

Note: None of the researchers quoted in this box believe in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution.
The term “hominid” is used to describe what evolutionary researchers feel make up the human family and prehistoric humanlike species.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
The progression of apes to humans, according to the theory of evolution

  • Such pictures as this are based on the biases and assumptions of researchers and artists, not on facts.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
  • Fossilized teeth

    The majority of such drawings are based on partial skulls and isolated teeth. Complete skulls, let alone complete skeletons, are rare.
  • There is no consensus among researchers as to how the fossils of the various creatures should be classified.
  • An artist’s rendition of facial features, skin tone, and hair of an extinct creature

    Artists cannot reliably reconstruct the facial features, skin tone, and hair of these extinct creatures.
  • Each creature is placed in its position leading to modern man largely because of the size of its brain case. This is done despite evidence that brain size is not a reliable indicator of intelligence.
 
Comment

homer_simpson

Eternal Poster
Yung ganitong klase ng mga posts ang nagpapatunay na b(o)bo at t(a)nga ang mga taga-CERN. Imagine mo, hanggang ngayun hindi pa rin nila alam ang origin of the universe, nor how life actually evolve! Ano sibli ng bilyon dullars, oras o utak (kung meron man) na inubos nila. Kelan pa sila mamumulat sa "ULTIMATE TRUTH"?

Higit pa dun, hindi pa din nila alam na natuklasan na ni Mr gentelman (na isang taga-phcorner) and his cohorts ang sagot sa mga tanong na iyan nuon pa.

Row 4 siguro mga taga-CERN nung elementary pa. Wat do u say, mr gentelman?
 
Comment

sucre2

Established
Did you observed the evolution personally? Yung big bang napatunayan niyo na ba? Lahat ng theories how the whole universe started are still a "THEORY" :)
Kamangmangan ng nagsasabi na theory LANG. magaral dapat para malaman kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng theory of evolution.ito ay gathered FACTS hindi haka haka na katulad sa relihiyon SCIENTIC FACTS!.kaya kokonti ang mga scientist dito satin kasi indoctrinated sa kamangmangan ng relihiyon.
 
Comment

sucre2

Established
Eto ang nagiisang FACT sa bible: biblical creation is unveriafiable and cannot be accepted as true. Believers will always resort to FAITH because faith is believing without proof thus make it an unreliable pathway to truth.
 
Comment

Yortz

Honorary Poster
Kamangmangan ng nagsasabi na theory LANG. magaral dapat para malaman kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng theory of evolution.ito ay gathered FACTS hindi haka haka na katulad sa relihiyon SCIENTIC FACTS!.kaya kokonti ang mga scientist dito satin kasi indoctrinated sa kamangmangan ng relihiyon.
Wow? Hahaha. Gathered facts na based sa theory as "acceptable facts". Yung sayo sure na sure na, pero sa mga scientist at "experts" ay theories palang naman. Acceptable facts na based sa theory of evolution. Ayayay 🤦‍♂️ 😅

What is Faith? "Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." - Hebrew 11:1
Hindi ba ganyan din naman kayo sa evolution? Feeling niyo sure na sure na yung beliefs niyo gaya mo para sayo sure na sure na. Pero magbabago uli kapag merong "acceptable facts" uli na lumitas sa "theories" niyo mehehe ;)
 
Last edited:
C
//Nakakatawa lang kasi para sa inyo sure na sure na, where as mismong mga bilib na bilib kayo na "expert" ay theory palang naman mehehe.//

-Supported ng maraming evidence ang bigbang theory so may rason ako para maniwala. At di basahin mo yung sinabi ko tungkol sa scientific theory.

//Yung big bang pala na observed niyo no? Ngaleng. Kunwari "matalino" pero "theory" lang din naman.//

-Nakikita natin na nageexpand ang universe. At lalo na ang pinakamahalagang scientific discovery sa lahat-- ang Cosmic microwave background. Kaya masasabi kong supportado ng Hubble law at CMB ang Bigbang.

//May definition ka pa ng scientific theory. Based sa definition mo, "formulated to explain a group of facts". Is the big bang a fact or theory? Is the evolution a "real" fact or theory? Na observed niyo yung big bang? Really?//

-low reading comprehension? Eto lalagay ko ulit definition ah.

Scientific theory definition, a coherent group of propositions FORMULATED TO EXPLAIN A GROUP OF FACTS like hubble law (which is a scientific facts) ibig sabihin neto ay kayang iexplain ng bigbang theory ang mga facts at phenomenon. Kagaya ng hubble law, kayang iexplain ng bigbang theory yan.

//Yan kasi yun e. Faith ka pa ng faith e ikaw din may faith sa "theories" niyo :)//

-faith means belief without evidence. But bigbang theory have overwhelming evidence and supported by facts and phenomenon

//Rebut? Naaah. Nakakatawa lang mehehe//

-lol
 

Yortz

Honorary Poster
Eto ang nagiisang FACT sa bible: biblical creation is unveriafiable and cannot be accepted as true. Believers will always resort to FAITH because faith is believing without proof thus make it an unreliable pathway to truth.
What about the theory of big bang? Theory of evolution? Talaga bang big bang ang simula kaya nagkaroon ng buhay? Pano mo nalaman na totoo yun e "theory" palang naman din yun? "acceptable theory" nga lang yun para sa inyo. Kakatawa. Faith ka ng faith e kayo rin naman may faith haha ;)
 
Comment

Eseru

Elite
Calling evolution a theory, which it is, is actually a tremendous compliment!

While the argument that Evolution is Just a Theory is very rarely presented in its logical form, for the purpose of clearly demonstrating why exactly it’s flawed, I’m going to present it this way nonetheless;

• A theory is, by definition, “an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action”.
• Evolution is a theory.
• Therefore, evolution is just “an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action”.

here are several flaws and fallacies that those who use the augment that Evolution is Just a Theory tend to commit, but for a very brief summary (extremely brief), they are as follows:

1. Equivocation Fallacy: The first major flaw with the argument that Evolution is Just a Theory, is that it commits and that it pretty much entirely is, a huge Equivocation Fallacy. An Equivocation Fallacy is the misleading use of a word or a term with more than one meaning, by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time.

And in this case, the Equivocation Fallacy occurs in the word ‘theory’.
The argument uses one definition of the word ‘theory’ during its first and third premises – that being, “an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action”; but it uses another definition of the word ‘theory’ during its second premise – that being, “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined protocol of observations and experiments”, and because it switches between these two definitions to attain its conclusion, it’s not a coherent argument.

2. Scientifically Illiterate

However, to raise another… not so much of a flaw but rather a comment, proponents of the Just a Theory argument tend not only be unaware of what a scientific theory is, but they also tend to be unaware of the four degrees of scientific knowledge altogether… that being facts, laws, hypotheses, and of course theories.

To put it simply;

• A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation. For example, it’s cold outside.
• A scientific law is a description of how some aspect of the universe behaves under stated circumstances (but not why). For example, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
• A scientific hypothesis is, for intent and purposes, an educated guess. It’s very similar to the everyday layman definition of the word theory. For example, eating vegetables causes weight loss because they’re low in calories but are high in fiber.
And a scientific theory is a rigorously tested and confirmed hypothesis that accounts for all related facts and laws and has been proven to accurately predict future findings and phenomenon. Or as Matt Dillahunty puts it, “a theory is the highest possible achievement of science”.

3. Fact & Theory:

The last small point I want to make on this matter is that evolution is technically both a fact and a theory. It’s an uncontroversial fact that organisms have changed (or evolved) during the history of the life of Earth, and the theory as to why these organisms have changed (or evolved) is called Natural Selection.

Just as gravity is a fact, so is evolution; and just as General Relatively is a scientific theory, so is Natural Selection.
 
Last edited:
Comment

Eseru

Elite
It’s an uncontroversial fact that organisms have changed (or evolved) during the history of the life of Earth that even the Watchtower has agreed on to, albeit in a roundabout way, IDK sa kanila, magulo sila. Kaya pala litung-lito ako kanina nung tinatry ko basahin yung mga posts.

1599315418273.png

1599315480812.png

Species are not the same as ‘kinds’, there may have been only a few hundred ‘kinds’ in the ark with Noah and that would have been enough for the survivors of the flood to repopulate the earth because over time there is this process by which the ‘kinds’ diversified into species. And they didn’t elaborate further than that, they just say, obviously these ‘kinds’ became the millions of species we know of today.

Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, is incredibly vague on how many representative ‘kinds’ boarded the ark to repopulate the planet. A number of only a few hundred is put forward that ‘could have produced the variety of species known today.’ Other creationists like Ken Ham are more generous, suggesting that 7,000 kinds accomplished this feat. Even if we take this larger figure, to suggest that 7,000 ‘kinds’ ballooned into 6.5million land-dwelling species in only 4,400 years requires an intensity and speed of natural selection that would baffle scientists. We would see, on average, approximately 1,500 new species evolving every year.

There’s a huge contradiction here because bear in mind that Jehova’s Witnesses seem to believe that Evolution is false teaching. If you check w13 10/15 p.7-8 that says

1599316133980.png

It’s a false teaching apparently and yet if you literally take the account of Noah, you have to believe that there’s only a ‘few hundred kinds’ or if we’re being generous, 7,000 ‘kinds’ ballooned into 6.5million land-dwelling species at a rate that scientists do not support in terms of the speed of evolution.

TLDR;

1599315480812.png

"...there are a few basic 'kinds' that emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually producing many variations of their 'kinds'. Although many new variations have come into existence since the Flood, the surviving 'kinds' have remained fixed and unchanged..."

So basically, the Bible says that there is evolution, that it happened, but they (The Watchtower) wouldn't call that process as 'evolution', they'd call it 'variation', and it also appears they have a different connotation for the word 'kind/s'.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Comment

sucre2

Established
What about the theory of big bang? Theory of evolution? Talaga bang big bang ang simula kaya nagkaroon ng buhay? Pano mo nalaman na totoo yun e "theory" palang naman din yun? "acceptable theory" nga lang yun para sa inyo. Kakatawa. Faith ka ng faith e kayo rin naman may faith haha ;)
Mas nakakatawa kayo kasi pinagaaral kayo ,bulakbol yata ang ginawa ninyo,ang bigbang accepted fact based on cuurent undertanding ng universe.at yan ay dahil pinagaralan at may sapat na dahilan para paniwalaan.on the other hand ang biblical creation ay totoo dahil sinabi ng biblia? Sino ang nakakatawa ngayon?
 
Comment

homer_simpson

Eternal Poster
Matanong lang sa mga panatiko ng relihiyon dito: Ilang scientific publications na ba ang ginamit ang bibliya bilang reference? Isa, dalawa o wala???
 
Comment

Online statistics

Members online
509
Guests online
1,429
Total visitors
1,938

Forum statistics

Threads
829,793
Messages
16,416,754
Members
1,446,322
Top