BLM discussion

Just google counter arguments to that, it gets pretty silly.

From wiki:

 

The devil corollary, the no devil corollary and the extreme no devil corollary. The devil corollary proposes that a being than which nothing worse can be conceived exists in the understanding (sometimes the term lesser is used in place of worse). Using Anselm's logical form, the parody argues that if it exists in the understanding, a worse being would be one that exists in reality; thus, such a being exists. The no devil corollary is similar, but argues that a worse being would be one that does not exist in reality, so does not exist. The extreme no devil corollary advances on this, proposing that a worse being would be that which does not exist in the understanding, so such a being exists neither in reality nor in the understanding. 

No... evolution explains biological development very very very well.

And it's far from a perfect design. For example the same gene that some primates have causes their body to produce vitamin C we also have... but it's broken, and so we don't produce vitamin C... and so that's why humans can get scurvy.

“Shrug” yeah it’s called ontological reasoning and I knew it had its flaws, but it still is really cool. If you want something more logically “perfect” Aquinas has that

Yessss the evolution thing. Okay I sincerely find evolution to be one of the weirdest things humans have ever thought up. So Darwin’s theory literally relies on the fact that the DNA is already in place, and certain individuals have their specific genes get expressed more than others due to natural selection. Well that doesn’t do you much good, because you still have to have the DNA system built up. Then scientists propose the “ DNA mutation” thing, where the DNA has an expedient defect and thus advances the organisms prowess accidentally. But... yeah, anytime a top scientist is asked to name a single mutation beneficial to humans they sort of cant

Btw llama, are you of the opinion that the universe came into existence at the time of a “big bang”

My dad has literally asked scientists to name one and they are just speechless

Hmmm, I am of the opinion that the evidence for evolution is very strong

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life or abiogenesis... and the science is so well established that reasonable Christians don't even care. Catholics, for example, say sure, evolution is fine, God designed it.

An explanation of why humans don’t have many of any “beneficial mutations” could be that when God infused a soul, the human body was relatively perfect... but that is pure speculation

Well if you mean evolution in the way of certain individuals being better equipped for natural problems then others, and the ones not properly equipped die out leaving the equipped individuals to have their DNA expression proportionality increase relative to the general population sure, I’m 100% onboard. But the whole thing about all creature starting out as single celled organisms, then the system do DNA replication and expression magically coming into being, and then there being trillions upon trillions of experiment defects in that DNA that build it all the way from a bacteria to a person seems... implausible, and just a theory not backed up by evidence (like I said, scientists can’t name just ONE expedient mutation.)

The llama speaks the truth

That's easy, bacteria that mutated allowing them to eat nylon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria_and_creationism

And in general, scroll down a bit after following the link below to see answers to common questions about evolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution

Well I would like to see the evidence lol, cause so at least what I’ve studied about it seemed quite unscientific with many problems

There are “expedient” mutations such as longer and stronger legs in kangaroos, or more helpful beaks in birds due to where they live

@gabegolfer Pantheism is the belief that reality is identical with divinity, or that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheist belief does not recognize a distinct personal god, anthropomorphic  or otherwise, but instead characterizes a broad range of doctrines differing in forms of relationships between reality and divinity.

 

 

 

Quick tip, don't use "just a theory" when debating someone

Colloquially "theory" means something like the word "guess" but in science a theory is extremely well supported by evidence. In fact you could even call it the highest standard of human knowledge that exists (ok, you can say highest non-supernatural standard if it makes you feel better )

So about that 2nd link I gave... a few of the common questions:

Q3: Why is evolution described as though it's a fact? Isn't evolution just a theory?
Q4: But isn't evolution unproven?
Q5: Has evolution ever been observed?

 

I did not mean all of nature is “god” but that he is the principal of existence

Well, like I said, I was a kid who grew up in a very religious environment... in a Christian school and all that.

When I was 13, in one Bible class we were shown tapes of Kent Hovind disproving evolution.

So I know how it is... and I don't hate you or anything... but outside of specific religious circles people really don't have a problem with evolution, and like I said many Christians will simply say evolution is a natural process that exists, and God designed it.

@gabegolfer, both of those examples have nothing to do with genetic mutation. In each case there already was the rather rare phenotype of birds with thick beams, but they were rarer than birds with thin beaks. When a drought came through, the birds with thin beaks died because their food dried up, but the birds with thick beaks could use their bigger beaks to crack open certain nuts the others could not. As a result the ones with thick beaks began to produce more offspring than the others, this increasing the amount of thick beaked birds

Lol well I’m not arguing against evolution because I think it contradicts the Catholic faith but because I think it’s just not very plausible