Anyone doubting the legitimacy of evolution NEEDS to watch the second episode of COSMOS

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

"
◄ 2 Peter 1:20 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.New Living Translation
Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet's own understanding,English Standard Version
knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.New American Standard Bible
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,King James Bible
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.Holman Christian Standard Bible
First of all, you should know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation, International Standard Version
First of all, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, NET Bible
Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet's own imagination,Aramaic Bible in Plain English
While you first know this: No prophecy is its own exposition of the Scriptures.GOD'S WORD® Translation
First, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.Jubilee Bible 2000
understanding this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.King James 2000 Bible
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of one's own interpretation.American King James Version
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.American Standard Version
knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.Douay-Rheims Bible
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. Darby Bible Translation
knowing this first, that [the scope of] no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,English Revised Version
knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.Webster's Bible Translation
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.Weymouth New Testament
But, above all, remember that no prophecy in Scripture will be found to have come from the prophet's own prompting;World English Bible
knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation.Young's Literal Translation
this first knowing, that no prophecy of the Writing doth come of private exposition,"

"Thats not the right context" - Typical Christian

 

[Pifferry]

"Thats not the right context" - Typical Christian

No you see! This is what it means! *goes and interprets the verse*

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

No you see! This is what it means! *goes and interprets the verse*

 

[dennis roadman]

Well let me take this time to say FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK William Lane Craig

have you seen his debate with Sean Carroll?

shyt was embarassing.

Here you have Sean Carroll...an accomplished astrophysicist and hard fukking working man...and WLC...a two-bit "theologian" (aka magician) trying to interpret science WAY above his pay grade

nah i didnt see it. after being in the world of theology, i'm exhausted, even 5 years later. i cant really take any more god-talk

actually i think you might enjoy Mary Daly, she's angry as fukk and incredibly critical of christianity. and james cone is worth reading as well. you might find a lot of points of agreement with them.

but both of them are speaking through a religious funnel to make headway for their respective causes (women, black americans, respectively).

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

nah i didnt see it. after being in the world of theology, i'm exhausted, even 5 years later. i cant really take any more god-talk

actually i think you might enjoy Mary Daly, she's angry as fukk and incredibly critical of christianity. and james cone is worth reading as well. you might find a lot of points of agreement with them.

but both of them are speaking through a religious funnel to make headway for their respective causes (women, black americans, respectively).

you should check out Chris Hitchens...it'd make your day


What made you deconvert? what do you do now?

 

[Pifferry]

you should check out Chris Hitchens...it'd make your day


What made you deconvert? what do you do now?

He's far to angry for me

 

[dennis roadman]

you should check out Chris Hitchens...it'd make your day


What made you deconvert? what do you do now?

yeah i'm a hitchens fan, but not really because i agree with him. i just really enjoy his writings. i don't really appreciate his dogma-tizing of atheism to be honest, but he was a great writer and i miss him

you should read Bart Ehrmann on some real shyt, he was raised fundamentalist and calmly ethers the fukk out of anyone claiming any type of superiority in their religious interpretation of scripture.

i left because of what i said, it's all just people wanting to believe so badly that they bend over backwards to make it work in their heads.

i wasn't raised in the church or anything, when i told my family i wanted to study religion they encouraged it, but were surprised. i went in and out on my own, and because i have all sorts of religious groups within my own family, i felt i've always been able to look at things more objectively than a lot of people i studied with/under.

now i'm self-employed, i teach English to people from different countries, a lot of them hardcore christians and muslims

 

[aXiom]

Why does it have to be one or the other?

I've yet to be convinced that Evolution is a fact. It's still a theory. I grew up in Christianity, but I started questioning it from a very early age.. somewhere around 11-13, and that's without outside influence. Some things just didn't sit right with me, and heaven and hell to this day, are still not things I care about, nor is creationism.

"WHY?" <--------- That word, as long as it exists, we will move mountains to come up with answers. That's not necessarily a bad thing as it's through our relentless efforts of trying to figure out "why?" and coming up with answers as best as we can that lead up to us being where we are right now. That being said, we're arrogant. A few hundred years ago we thought we'd fall off the earth if we sailed too far west. Now, without shyt for evidence, we think we can answer damn near everything the universe throws at us. It's like a toddler thinking they can solve a differential equation now that they've just learned how to count to 10. When we don't understand things we make up theories, but most of the theories we come up with are severely hampered by the fact that they're based upon earth as we know it. The furthest we've ever physically been is the moon(Just outside of our solar system if you count Voyager), yet we think we know enough about the universe to put a time stamp on its "birth" and how it "began". We're talking about a species that has yet to solve its energy and food crisis, a species that doesn't understand enough about itself and its surroundings to come up with vaccines for diseases that's been destroying it for centuries, a species that still can't or refuses to put aside petty differences for the betterment of itself, a species that's individually and collectively narcissistic, a species that purposely setup situations where most of its own kind suffers so that a few can live extravagantly. You mean a species like this is gonna come up with a correct theory of "when" the universe came into existence? We're still in our infancy, no doubt we're making strides, but we're trying to run before we're able to crawl. 1500-2000 years from now we'll be looking like cave men to our descendants, but that's the way it works. Our successors will build upon the knowledge we've left them and a lot of theories will be torn down and rebuilt with the discovery of new things. New ways of thinking will arise and even be applied to theories we use today on some "this changes everything" type shyt.

That's just my $0.02.

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

I watched the episode and it still didn't convince me that evolution is indeed FACT however it was a very good explanation. My problem with the argument has nothing to do with religion. It's that everything in suppose to be one big "accident." Everything is just one big mistake. It doesn't make sense. Something like bioluminescence can "accidentally" evolve 20+ times yet self awareness/conceptualization to the extent that humans have it has only happened once? That makes sense to people? I think that there is more work to do. I am not saying it is wrong but incomplete. Until the scientific community can explain the origin of life, self awareness and the birth of consciousness I find it hard to believe that they have all the FACTS and a complete theory about life. It isn't not complete...that is a fact. I will never understand why people go so hard for an incomplete argument.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I watched the episode and it still didn't convince me that evolution is indeed FACT however it was a very good explanation. My problem with the argument has nothing to do with religion. It's that everything in suppose to be one big "accident." Everything is just one big mistake. It doesn't make sense. Something like bioluminescence can "accidentally" evolve 20+ times yet self awareness/conceptualization to the extent that humans have it has only happened once? That makes sense to people? I think that there is more work to do. I am not saying it is wrong but incomplete. Until the scientific community can explain the origin of life, self awareness and the birth of consciousness I find it hard to believe that they have all the FACTS and a complete theory about life. It isn't not complete...that is a fact. I will never understand why people go so hard for an incomplete argument.

This is a flawed statement.

1. we've only been looking at awareness critically for barely 100 years, even less with modern neuroscience

2. Other animals are VERY aware and sentient.

3. Not having answers that satisify you, doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

4. Evolution is a fact. Things evolve. Mutations and natural selection are SCIENTIFIC THEORIES (i.e. frameworks that explain phenomena) that explain evolution.

5. Life is explained pretty well. Take a biochemistry class, or a microbiology class.

6. I don't think you're aware of what you don't even know, if that makes sense. Basically, a lot of what you claim we don't know, is KNOWN.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Why does it have to be one or the other?

I've yet to be convinced that Evolution is a fact. It's still a theory. I grew up in Christianity, but I started questioning it from a very early age.. somewhere around 11-13, and that's without outside influence. Some things just didn't sit right with me, and heaven and hell to this day, are still not things I care about, nor is creationism.

"WHY?" <--------- That word, as long as it exists, we will move mountains to come up with answers. That's not necessarily a bad thing as it's through our relentless efforts of trying to figure out "why?" and coming up with answers as best as we can that lead up to us being where we are right now. That being said, we're arrogant. A few hundred years ago we thought we'd fall off the earth if we sailed too far west. Now, without shyt for evidence, we think we can answer damn near everything the universe throws at us. It's like a toddler thinking they can solve a differential equation now that they've just learned how to count to 10. When we don't understand things we make up theories, but most of the theories we come up with are severely hampered by the fact that they're based upon earth as we know it. The furthest we've ever physically been is the moon(Just outside of our solar system if you count Voyager), yet we think we know enough about the universe to put a time stamp on its "birth" and how it "began". We're talking about a species that has yet to solve its energy and food crisis, a species that doesn't understand enough about itself and its surroundings to come up with vaccines for diseases that's been destroying it for centuries, a species that still can't or refuses to put aside petty differences for the betterment of itself, a species that's individually and collectively narcissistic, a species that purposely setup situations where most of its own kind suffers so that a few can live extravagantly. You mean a species like this is gonna come up with a correct theory of "when" the universe came into existence? We're still in our infancy, no doubt we're making strides, but we're trying to run before we're able to crawl. 1500-2000 years from now we'll be looking like cave men to our descendants, but that's the way it works. Our successors will build upon the knowledge we've left them and a lot of theories will be torn down and rebuilt with the discovery of new things. New ways of thinking will arise and even be applied to theories we use today on some "this changes everything" type shyt.

That's just my $0.02.

False.

Evolution is a fact. it occurs. its a phenomenon.

Darwin didn't know about DNA. So he got the mutation aspect wrong.

We doo.

Evolution can be explained by natural selection and genetic mutation.

Period.

Theories work because they explain phenomena and evidence supports them.

We have more evidence for how evolution works than we do gravity. This is true.

 

[aXiom]

False.

Evolution is a fact. it occurs. its a phenomenon.

Darwin didn't know about DNA. So he got the mutation aspect wrong.

We doo.

Evolution can be explained by natural selection and genetic mutation.

Period.

Theories work because they explain phenomena and evidence supports them.

We have more evidence for how evolution works than we do gravity. This is true.

I never said I was against evolution. I simply stated that I'm not convinced. You can ride for it as hard as you want, it's not gonna help 3k years from now when we get one step closer to figuring out the origin of life and everything we believed up until that point turns out to be a lie. We have so much more to learn as a species, providing that the earth continues to grant us stay, it's silly to think we know it all or we'll ever know it all.

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

This is a flawed statement.

1. we've only been looking at awareness critically for barely 100 years, even less with modern neuroscience

2. Other animals are VERY aware and sentient.

3. Not having answers that satisify you, doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

4. Evolution is a fact. Things evolve. Mutations and natural selection are SCIENTIFIC THEORIES (i.e. frameworks that explain phenomena) that explain evolution.

5. Life is explained pretty well. Take a biochemistry class, or a microbiology class.

6. I don't think you're aware of what you don't even know, if that makes sense. Basically, a lot of what you claim we don't know, is KNOWN.

Again, the theory is incomplete. Is it not? You can go as hard as you want but there is no consensus on the origin of life, how consciousnesses came to be or why there hasn't been one other species that has the ability to conceptualize as we do, have written language, create art or leave the plant for that matter.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I never said I was against evolution. I simply stated that I'm not convinced. You can ride for it as hard as you want, it's not gonna help 3k years from now when we get one step closer to figuring out the origin of life and everything we believed up until that point turns out to be a lie. We have so much more to learn as a species, providing that the earth continues to grant us stay, it's silly to think we know it all or we'll ever know it all.

but I'm telling you WHAT IS PROVEN.

Whats not to be convinced about? We figured all this shyt out in under 100 years.

fukking give humanity some credit.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Again, the theory is incomplete. Is it not? You can go as hard as you want but there is no consensus on the origin of life, how consciousnesses came to be or why there hasn't been one other species that has the ability to conceptualize as we do, have written language, create art or leave the plant for that matter.

thats not incomplete.

The origin of life has MANY great theories and a biochemistry class might help you understand this.

Abiogenesis seems REALLY plausible, and experiments since then have confirmed this. Also, panspermia is a decent candidate.

Also, you're ignoring fact. There ARE other really sentient animals. Just cause they don't have fingers and toes doesn't mean whales are fukking stupid or lack communication.