Originally posted by Wild Shadowjust don't. you are begining to portray yourself as an incredible ego-maniac for beating your basic religious christian. He's not a scientist or a mathemetician it doesn't take much to beat him (sorry JIA i agree with almost everything you said, although claiming to prove the bible and then pushing the faith eject button is a fail in my book and it only makes opponents of the bible stronger)
so.. guys did i win this debate or what?starwars
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
have you ever lied? stolen? have you ever hit someone?
any of these things and you are just as guilty as Adam and eve. You had a choice to do the right thing and you did the wrong thing.
indeed. I can disprove evolution, i can offer proof of ID, but i cannot prove the bible except for things that I know happened, like exodus, or the flood, or the roman occupation of Israel, etc. I rely on faith for those things. If i were to try and prove miracles i'd be a fool, but i believe i happened just as much as I believe the roman occupation of Israel happened.
You cannot disprove evolution.
Adam and Eve are just myth.
The floor in the bible is just a story, and there has never been a flood that covered the Earth.
These are just your beliefs and nothing more. They come from a book that humans wrote. There is nothing to be saved from, and Jesus is not going to ever return.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You cannot disprove evolution.
Adam and Eve are just myth.
The floor in the bible is just a story, and there has never been a flood that covered the Earth.
have fun in your life with no hope of redemption. I can't prove jesus is going to return, i never claimed that. I believe that by faith. If you want to talk intelligent design i can do that.
These are just your beliefs and nothing more. They come from a book that humans wrote. There is nothing to be saved from, and Jesus is not going to ever return.
The truth is, mr. S, you are exactly what JIA is, only on the other side of the spectrum. You refuse to debate and present no logic when an actual arguement is brought up against you and resort to utter fanboyistic ignorant comments, like when I say that "I believe something and i couldn't prove it but that's why I have to believe it" you reply with
These are just your beliefs and nothing more.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive😆 you are such a tard, stick a tiger in a room with a man and see how Gods perfect design becomes tiger poo.
Ain't...ahem...I mean don't humans represent evolutionary processes' zenith in terms of superior workmanship? That is why I use human organisms in my posts so frequently. May as well start at the tippy top.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11Easy, both people had a limited understanding of what the world is. A big local flood in their era would be considered world wide because that is their world. They also both have myths of the same "mystical" creatures, does this make them true as well?
Also, both the chinese and the incas, both on seperate continents separated by large bodies of water have a legend of a world wide flood. Explain that.
You can not prove the flood unless you accept the science of how we determin the age of the Earth, so which is it?
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11So lets go back to your "perfect math" which if you are using this as your basis I can see why you are off.
first of all, this is 100,000 years aggo, we were supposed to have some sort of warm blooded creatures at that point. Those things you listed are not warm blooded. And I did make an error. i have the balls to admit that. i should have taken the difference between today's winter and today's summer and multiplied those by 19. so lets just play with the worst case scenario. Chicago, hottest day recorded is 100 degrees. Chicago, coldest day recorded is -27 degrees. 127 degrees multiply that x 19=2413. So we are going to have a temperature fluctuation of 2413 degrees depending on where the earth is in accordance to the sun. I do not know what the temperature would actually be, but the fluctuation would be incredible, and most indeedily unsurviveable.
So let us look as some known facts.
Mercury
Min/Max Distance from the Sun: 28.6/69.8 million miles
Temperature Range: -300º F to 800º F
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mercury/statistics.html&edu=high
Earth
Min/Max Distance from the Sun: 91/94.5 million miles
Temperature Range: -128º F to 136º F
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/statistics.html&edu=high
So if your figures are correct then that would have to make Earth pass closer to the Sun then Mercury by nearly twice the distance to reach a surface temperature of 2000º. Then you would have to factor in the Mercury doesn’t have any atmosphere which helps the Earth so that would have to be burned off which at 800 o it is already gone for Mercury. So are you sure your math is even close to being right?
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
just don't. you are begining to portray yourself as an incredible ego-maniac for beating your basic religious christian. He's not a scientist or a mathemetician it doesn't take much to beat him (sorry JIA i agree with almost everything you said, although claiming to prove the bible and then pushing the faith eject button is a fail in my book and it only makes opponents of the bible stronger)
adding some levity to the debate to keep myself from going insane..
😗
laughing you are such a tard, stick a tiger in a room with a man and see how Gods perfect design becomes tiger poo.
just make sure its not an african tribes kid with a stick otherwise your argument falls apart and you'll look like an idiot when the tiger ends up dead.
whip
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
False... I will just rip holes through weak point after weak point.
Oh, and you can prove it? No i didn't think so, once again you are treating it like fact in the hypothesis that "i cannot disprove it."
I don’t have to prove anything to you. The facts that support evolution are overwhelming. Go to school and learn…
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I'm not going to argue with you. there is no way i could substantiate them. This was a response to his "you can't blame me for that" and according to the bible i can. If you want to start debating science instead of talking about the religion (which is what i am doing) go back and look at my polonium halos link and come back. thank you.
The bible is wrong. All you are doing is talking about religion. Your science is laughable.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11[/QUOTE]
Logically, you are wrong. For instance, the Colorado river would be running uphill in order to carve out the grand canyon, which it would not do. The grand canyon was carved by something cataclysmic. I also notice how you've failed to notice my "fossilized trees" standing straight up through several geologic layers that are supposed to be "millions of years apart". Here's my theory. The cataclysmic happening of the firmament suddenly coming down buried everything, and pressurized it and gave us fossils and oil. (i'm not going into exactly how the fossils are formed, its basically what evolutionists say only happening rapidly fast, instead of over millions of years.)
You are now talking about fantasy. The Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years by slow uplift of the Colorado Plato. There is a world of information about the Grand Canyon. What you have to do is step out of your very small world and stop repeating what you have been told and go look for your self.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Also, both the chinese and the incas, both on seperate continents separated by large bodies of water have a legend of a world wide flood. Explain that.
You have to keep in mind what the word “world” means. There are two meaning of the word. The first one is the planet Earth, and the other is what I see around me. People of the past had no idea that this planet even existed. They believed that the Earth was flat. If all you knew was the land were you lived, and all of that land was flooded, then you would say that the World Was Flooded. What if this was only a few thousand square miles? You would still think that the “Earth”, from your point of view, was flooded.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
have fun in your life with no hope of redemption. I can't prove jesus is going to return, i never claimed that. I believe that by faith. If you want to talk intelligent design i can do that.
Here is my proof: When you are an old man, look around you, you will see that Jesus has not returned.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
What are these facts?
that rain can and does wear away rock formations as can wind and sand. that the earth detonic plates does push up mountains and can also create volcanoes or can do the opposite and bring them down.. meteors as well as asteroids have collided with earth to create craters and large earth scarring..the earth at one time was covered by oceans only for it to recede when the earth orbit shifted... ect ect..
🤓
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
that rain can and does wear away rock formations as can wind and sand. that the earth detonic plates does push up mountains and can also create volcanoes or can do the opposite and bring them down.. meteors as well as asteroids have collided with earth to create craters and large earth scarring..the earth at one time was covered by oceans only for it to recede when the earth orbit shifted... ect ect..🤓
I'm waiting on him telling me the facts that prove evolution...I don't mean to be pedantic but there are so many people around here who are tarting on about how evolution is true when they don't even know what it is...
Digi could explain evolution...can Shaky?
Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[15][16] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.
There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. [3]
The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[15][16] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. [3]
The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.
You're missing the point. I know what evolution is and I know the ideas behind it but I do not know it well enough to declare that I believe it without that belief being based purely on faith.
Shaky is saying that he believes in evolution and it has been pretty much proven- well I am asking him to prove that he knows what evolution is.
I am not asking him to prove the theory, just to prove that he knows what it is.
After all, if he doesn't know what the theory is- then he is a hypocrite for lambasting other people who make judgements based on faith.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t have to prove anything to you. The facts that support evolution are overwhelming. Go to school and learn…
The bible is wrong. All you are doing is talking about religion. Your science is laughable.
You are now talking about fantasy. The Grand Canyon was formed over millions of years by slow uplift of the Colorado Plato. There is a world of information about the Grand Canyon. What you have to do is step out of your very small world and stop repeating what you have been told and go look for your self.
uh-huh. You are pretty dumb geographically. I'm sorry. And you are a troll. incas=mexico/south america, chinese/hebrews=asia.
You have to keep in mind what the word “world” means. There are two meaning of the word. The first one is the planet Earth, and the other is what I see around me. People of the past had no idea that this planet even existed. They believed that the Earth was flat. If all you knew was the land were you lived, and all of that land was flooded, then you would say that the World Was Flooded. What if this was only a few thousand square miles? You would still think that the “Earth”, from your point of view, was flooded.
Uh-huh, as i expected. As this has yet to happen, this is not "proof", since you cannot prove what has not happened yet. Dumbass troll.
Here is my proof: When you are an old man, look around you, you will see that Jesus has not returned.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The believer and the atheist function or operate on two separate planes as it were so I don't know why you want to compare the two. One is by faith and the other is by something else. You cannot hold me to the same standard that I hold you to because you stand or fall through what you can or cannot prove using the scientific method. This is not the case with me and I have indicated this from the outset. I cannot prove that God did anything, nor did I ever say that I could.I believe that you are getting upset because you know deep down inside that evolutionary theory can never be proven, and that you have nothing else (no other viable theories) to help you account for life's origin except God.
What say you Wild Shadow?
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11OMFG, did you read anything that he wrote. What does that have to do with what he posted, it is the same as what I said. They had no idea what the world means much less the Earth, how is someone in Asia supposed to know that Mexico flooded? Did they have telephones, GPS or satellites? Also what is your problem with using capitals?
uh-huh. You are pretty dumb geographically. I'm sorry. And you are a troll. incas=mexico/south america, chinese/hebrews=asia.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11The wrong math.
troll. Don't start a debate and say you have nothing to prove. Don't tell me to go to school and learn when i posted mathematics and you asked me to explain them to you in kindergarten terms.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
So lets go back to your "perfect math" which if you are using this as your basis I can see why you are off.So let us look as some known facts.
Mercury
Min/Max Distance from the Sun: 28.6/69.8 million miles
Temperature Range: -300º F to 800º F
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mercury/statistics.html&edu=highEarth
Min/Max Distance from the Sun: 91/94.5 million miles
Temperature Range: -128º F to 136º F
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/statistics.html&edu=highSo if your figures are correct then that would have to make Earth pass closer to the Sun then Mercury by nearly twice the distance to reach a surface temperature of 2000º. Then you would have to factor in the Mercury doesn’t have any atmosphere which helps the Earth so that would have to be burned off which at 800 o it is already gone for Mercury. So are you sure your math is even close to being right?
Originally posted by Robtard
Good lord, in the case of chromosome 2 being fused, either it wasn't fused and it became fused, ie changed over time/evolved, or it was created/designed that way as some form of trickery.Repeat: It's fused, so it had to be un-fused at some point.
The evolutionary mind sees what it is presupposed or wants to see. For example, if a proponent of evolutionary theory sees a fused chromosome in human DNA, it was not created fused by God (which I am still waiting for you to prove). In the mind of the evolutionist there is a link between an unfused ape chromosome and a fused human chromosme because it is advantageous and conducive to supporting his/her preconceived beliefs.