What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Based on scientific theory

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

Next.
Okay. So yung big bang pala sure na. Ngaleng :)
 
[XX='ChristianNaitsirhc, c: 252532, m: 1677118'][/XX] 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. Yung big bang pala na observed niyo no? Ngaleng. Kunwari "matalino" pero "theory" lang din naman. 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?

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

Rebut? Naaah. Nakakatawa lang mehehe
 
//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
 
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:
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:
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?
 
Matanong lang sa mga panatiko ng relihiyon dito: Ilang scientific publications na ba ang ginamit ang bibliya bilang reference? Isa, dalawa o wala???
 
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? 😅
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top