• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

how to explain evolution to a theist

J

jamesmorrow

Active Member
i have recently watched an episode of the atheist experience, where the host, matt dillahunty debated professional christian apologist ray comfort... matt came up with a genius example on how to explain evolution to ray, that ray simply had no response to, other than saying "ok"...

this is what matt said, slightly paraphrased.... WE KNOW THAT SPANISH AND ITALIAN ARE DERIVATIVES OF LATIN, BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO TRACE BACK THE ORIGINS OF THESE LANGUAGES TO LATIN. NOW, SPANISH AND ITALIAN ARE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES YET WE STILL KNOW THAT THEY BOTH ORIGINATED WITH THE SAME LANGUAGE. STILL, THERE IS NO LATIN SPEAKING MOTHER THAT GAVE BIRTH TO A SPANISH SPEAKING CHILD. SOME PEOPLE CONTINUED TO SPEAK LATIN, SOME PEOPLE MOVED OFF AND THEIR LATIN CHANGED AND BECAME SPANISH OR ITALIAN OVER TIME, AND AT NO POINT WAS THERE THIS CROCODUCK OF LANGUAGE, THE LATIN SPAN-ADUCK, OR WHATEVER...PEOPLE GAVE BIRTH TO KIDS THAT SPOKE THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THEIR REGION, AND OVER A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND A REGIONAL SEPARATION, THEY BECAME SEPARATE AND DISTINCT LANGUAGES. THAT IS DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS TO WHAT HAPPENS TO SPECIES WITHIN EVOLUTION.


edit. here is the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyzF8SMQOxU

what do you think?
 
Last edited:
Iti oj

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
good way to explain it and i might use it in the future,,,thanks for sharing it.
 
O

orcel

Amature Theologian
jamesmorrow said:
...AND AT NO POINT WAS THERE THIS CROCODUCK OF LANGUAGE, THE LATIN SPAN-ADUCK, OR WHATEVER...
Click to expand...

I have a bit of a problem with this line. Perhaps I don't understand it exacly but are you suggesting that there didn't exist a transitional language? I'd bet there was, and a whole lot of 'em.

But alas in species evolution the number fossils offered as transitional species found is (relatively speaking) darn near zilch.
 
J

jamesmorrow

Active Member
orcel said:
I have a bit of a problem with this line. Perhaps I don't understand it exacly but are you suggesting that there didn't exist a transitional language? I'd bet there was, and a whole lot of 'em.

But alas in species evolution the number fossils offered as transitional species found is (relatively speaking) darn near zilch.
Click to expand...


no, what he is saying is that all languages during the course of human history are transitional languages..... the spanish language for example is constantly changing... it slowly branched off from latin and evolved into its current form.... same goes for italian, french, and romanian, which are all latin based languages sharing a common ancestor... much like we share a common ancestor with modern apes, orangutans etc.............. ray comfort , in his infamous stupidity was asking for a crocoduck... half duck, half crocodile. so matt used it in his explanation.
 
9Westy9

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
orcel said:
I have a bit of a problem with this line. Perhaps I don't understand it exacly but are you suggesting that there didn't exist a transitional language? I'd bet there was, and a whole lot of 'em.

But alas in species evolution the number fossils offered as transitional species found is (relatively speaking) darn near zilch.
Click to expand...

I think a more modern example is America, UK and Australia. While we still have the same base language each language have unique words to them. For example we have the word trousers whereas Americans use pants. We use Football where Americans use Soccer etc. (we being the UK)
 
O

orcel

Amature Theologian
jamesmorrow said:
no, what he is saying is that all languages during the course of human history are transitional languages..... the spanish language for example is constantly changing... it slowly branched off from latin and evolved into its current form.... same goes for italian, french, and romanian, which are all latin based languages sharing a common ancestor... much like we share a common ancestor with modern apes, orangutans etc.............. ray comfort , in his infamous stupidity was asking for a crocoduck... half duck, half crocodile. so matt used it in his explanation.
Click to expand...

Ah... Yes I almost ended that last post with the reminder that of course all species are transitional. But still i don't like the analogy becasue (and I'm assuming here) there are evidences of the transitions and growth of the spanish language. Kinda like Middle English, Old English etc. I'm assuming that some equivlent of Middle Spanish and Old Spanish exist in written form. But alas there really isn't much fossil evidence for a middle duck. There is a little evidence but given the shere amount of development shouldn't there be more?


Disclaimer: I'm just trying to play devil advocate here. I mostly accept both the literal inperptatation of Genesis and evolution as possible and likely. They are not mutually exclusive.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
jamesmorrow said:
i have recently watched an episode of the atheist experience, where the host, matt dillahunty debated professional christian apologist ray comfort... matt came up with a genius example on how to explain evolution to ray, that ray simply had no response to, other than saying "ok"...

this is what matt said, slightly paraphrased.... WE KNOW THAT SPANISH AND ITALIAN ARE DERIVATIVES OF LATIN, BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO TRACE BACK THE ORIGINS OF THESE LANGUAGES TO LATIN. NOW, SPANISH AND ITALIAN ARE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES YET WE STILL KNOW THAT THEY BOTH ORIGINATED WITH THE SAME LANGUAGE. STILL, THERE IS NO LATIN SPEAKING MOTHER THAT GAVE BIRTH TO A SPANISH SPEAKING CHILD. SOME PEOPLE CONTINUED TO SPEAK LATIN, SOME PEOPLE MOVED OFF AND THEIR LATIN CHANGED AND BECAME SPANISH OR ITALIAN OVER TIME, AND AT NO POINT WAS THERE THIS CROCODUCK OF LANGUAGE, THE LATIN SPAN-ADUCK, OR WHATEVER...PEOPLE GAVE BIRTH TO KIDS THAT SPOKE THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THEIR REGION, AND OVER A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND A REGIONAL SEPARATION, THEY BECAME SEPARATE AND DISTINCT LANGUAGES. THAT IS DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS TO WHAT HAPPENS TO SPECIES WITHIN EVOLUTION.


what do you think?
Click to expand...
I think that is a very good illustration, and I also might use it sometime. But the problem is that there are people who actually believe that all humans once spoke the same language until “God” came down and confused our tongues in order to prevent us from building tall towers.
 
J

jamesmorrow

Active Member
orcel said:
Ah... Yes I almost ended that last post with the reminder that of course all species are transitional. But still i don't like the analogy becasue (and I'm assuming here) there are evidences of the transitions and growth of the spanish language. Kinda like Middle English, Old English etc. I'm assuming that some equivlent of Middle Spanish and Old Spanish exist in written form. But alas there really isn't much fossil evidence for a middle duck. There is a little evidence but given the shere amount of development shouldn't there be more?


Disclaimer: I'm just trying to play devil advocate here. I mostly accept both the literal inperptatation of Genesis and evolution as possible and likely. They are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
thats because evolution works on a larger scale. we are part of it. so its more difficult to notice. we are the modern spanish language, in order to look back at our "latin" origin we have to go beyond our modern existence into the ancient primate and even beyond that... we have found plenty transitional forms leading from primate to modern human, but creationists will simply label them as either human or ape, in order to dismiss the evidence... whats funny is that they get to a certain point where they disagree amongst themselves whether to label it human or ape, which is the ultimate definition of a transitional form. not quite this, but not quite that.
 
dyanaprajna2011

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
jamesmorrow said:
i have recently watched an episode of the atheist experience, where the host, matt dillahunty debated professional christian apologist ray comfort... matt came up with a genius example on how to explain evolution to ray, that ray simply had no response to, other than saying "ok"...

this is what matt said, slightly paraphrased.... WE KNOW THAT SPANISH AND ITALIAN ARE DERIVATIVES OF LATIN, BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO TRACE BACK THE ORIGINS OF THESE LANGUAGES TO LATIN. NOW, SPANISH AND ITALIAN ARE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES YET WE STILL KNOW THAT THEY BOTH ORIGINATED WITH THE SAME LANGUAGE. STILL, THERE IS NO LATIN SPEAKING MOTHER THAT GAVE BIRTH TO A SPANISH SPEAKING CHILD. SOME PEOPLE CONTINUED TO SPEAK LATIN, SOME PEOPLE MOVED OFF AND THEIR LATIN CHANGED AND BECAME SPANISH OR ITALIAN OVER TIME, AND AT NO POINT WAS THERE THIS CROCODUCK OF LANGUAGE, THE LATIN SPAN-ADUCK, OR WHATEVER...PEOPLE GAVE BIRTH TO KIDS THAT SPOKE THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THEIR REGION, AND OVER A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND A REGIONAL SEPARATION, THEY BECAME SEPARATE AND DISTINCT LANGUAGES. THAT IS DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS TO WHAT HAPPENS TO SPECIES WITHIN EVOLUTION.


what do you think?
Click to expand...

I love it. Do you have a link to it?
 
F

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
orcel said:
But alas in species evolution the number fossils offered as transitional species found is (relatively speaking) darn near zilch.
Click to expand...

Every species is a transitional species. And even if that weren't true, the number of fossils we know of compared to the number of animals that have died throughout history is darn near zilch. Fossil formation is extremely rare. Coumpound that with the relatively short time frame and low population numbers that a "transitional" species would have had and the odds that any of them would have left fossils is almost none.
 
Father Heathen

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
9Westy9 said:
I think a more modern example is America, UK and Australia. While we still have the same base language each language have unique words to them. For example we have the word trousers whereas Americans use pants. We use Football where Americans use Soccer etc. (we being the UK)
Click to expand...

Also, trunk vs. boot. Hood vs. bonnet. Elevator vs. lift. Fries vs. chips vs. crisps. Cookie vs. biscuit vs. cracker. Gasoline vs petrol. Flashlight vs. torch. Truck vs. lorry, etc.

And words the that mean different things depending on which side of the pond you're on; fanny, f_g, stuffed, p_ssed, etc.

Fun stuff. :D
 
F

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
Father Heathen said:
Also, trunk vs. boot. Hood vs. bonnet. Elevator vs. lift. Fries vs. chips vs. crisps. Cookie vs. biscuit vs. cracker. Gasoline vs petrol. Flashlight vs. torch. Truck vs. lorry, etc.

And words the that mean different things depending on which side of the pond you're on; fanny, f_g, stuffed, p_ssed, etc.

Fun stuff. :D
Click to expand...

What does fanny and p_ssed mean in the UK?
 
9Westy9

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
Father Heathen said:
If my understanding is correct, "p_ssed" means drunk rather than angry, and "fanny" means vagina rather than buttocks in British English.
Click to expand...

p_ssed means either. I hear it used as drunk more than angry though (darn students always getting p_ssed :p)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top