Originally posted by LightsnakePlease. Point out where.
"Now I'm taking a personal affront to this. when I get my sources together, I'm going at this hard as I can."
your words, weren't they? why take it personally? i won't say i've been the slightest bit upset by anything in this discussion other than the pointless insulting that adds nothing.
Well, there is one ENORMOUS flaw of creationism. Creationists believe that God exists, and go on from there. But what if God doesn't exist (and he doesn't)? The rest of the theory is entirely and fully destroyed. Once you have proven that God exists (which you can't), then you can create theories on how the universe, earth, and life were made by His hand. So please, prove to me the existance of God.
Originally posted by Lightsnake
I have looked at it logically. I don't base my views on a 2000 year old book being dospel. Rather, I'll go where all scientific and logical evidence points me.
I have given dozens of quotes and Ideas and theories and proof that backs creationism and tears down evolution, I've successfully rebutted everything you have said. Now sit down and STFU!
He'd need to do the proving first. Using the extremely flawed idea that it's "One or the other" (And screw any other creation myth by his logc), he'd need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt God exists.
Secular humanism.
Learn about it. You don't need to believe in God to not be a hedonistic dick.
Oh, please. 'Dismiss' out of hand? Because they are attempting to claim and teach as fact something with zero backing, with no proof behind it beyond what they invent. Scientists hold beliefs should be based on evidence, not the other way around.hahahahahahahahahahaha 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
Typical fundie nonsense: The Great Scientist Conspiracy.
Really laughable
Please. Point out where.
No, I get annoyed because I consider creationism not only stupid, outdated and wrong, but poisonous and pompous. Any alternative theory could be true. Let's see evidence. I provided a good few webpages on the subject and I've seen nothing from either of you save for strawman and really bad logic
Haha straw man? you are such a hypocrite. Your also at a lack of hard evidence and your chief argument is that the bible is 5000 years old. I've given so much evidence, and I'm not even dry!
There's really little point in trying a discussion with people who try to hold the world is 5,000 years old and all scientists are evil hedonists
I am a science major. I know what i'm talking about, and you have shown so so so little hard evidence (the type that can be recorded) that I have nothing left for you except:
gg 2 u, sir. get the balls to admit defeat and come back later.
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Well, there is one ENORMOUS flaw of creationism. Creationists believe that God exists, and go on from there. But what if God doesn't exist (and he doesn't)? The rest of the theory is entirely and fully destroyed. Once you have proven that God exists (which you can't), then you can create theories on how the universe, earth, and life were made by His hand. So please, prove to me the existance of God.
It takes as much faith to believe God exists than to say He doesn't. You can't prove that He doesn't, just like Knightfall can't prove that He does.
Originally posted by Null ARC Avis
Well, there is one ENORMOUS flaw of creationism. Creationists believe that God exists, and go on from there. But what if God doesn't exist (and he doesn't)? The rest of the theory is entirely and fully destroyed. Once you have proven that God exists (which you can't), then you can create theories on how the universe, earth, and life were made by His hand. So please, prove to me the existance of God.
Originally posted by Enyalusexactly. its almost an unknown. Im not even debating religion right now, im debating that someone must have made it. you can pick... alien.. allah.. whatever. If you want to debate why Jesus Christ is the best choice, we will start that up.
It takes as much faith to believe God exists than to say He doesn't. You can't prove that He doesn't, just like Knightfall can't prove that He does.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Get balls.
Learn how To Debate.
Get a subject you know alot about
Get sources.
Come in.
Be wise.
I have given dozens of quotes and Ideas and theories and proof that backs creationism and tears down evolution, I've successfully rebutted everything you have said. Now sit down and STFU!
The one who needs to sit down is you
Please. your main argument is "its the bible lulz it can't be true cause its old." I didn't say anything about any other creation theory, either. In fact i said "there is a whole contingency of messianic, hindu, and muslim scientists[...]" I just am arguing for the one I believe in.
hmm. but humanism can't be logical if there is no supernatural.
hahahahahahahahahahaha 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
this is what I have been saying about your beliefs the whole time. You have posted pages upon pages of jargon with not one picture(not to sound childish 🙂 ) or fossil or test that gives credence to your "evidence".
And what, were those five links I posted non existent or did you ignore them in favor of false quotes?-IE: That Darwin claimed Toucans evolved from bananas
And some pictures?
http://www.allyourfaitharebelongtous.com/content.php?page=view_article.php%3FarticleID%3D16
This site has plenty
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/Fossils_and_the_history_of_life2.asp
Here're some more
http://www.wvup.edu/ecrisp/lecture2mesozoic.html
More. Geographic photos and explanations both
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7013/images/nature02843-f2.2.jpg
Fossil comparisons
So now you are dismissing it because you've heard it before? your logic astounds me.
LOL? My pictures?
my comparisons of bone structures?
my theories?
archeological finds?
radiation found inside sedimentary rock? WTF? you've posted pictures that try and explain away creationist views with no proof, experimental logs, fossils... NOTHING!
Haha straw man? you are such a hypocrite. Your also at a lack of hard evidence and your chief argument is that the bible is 5000 years old. I've given so much evidence, and I'm not even dry!
I am a science major.
I know what i'm talking about,
and you have shown so so so little hard evidence (the type that can be recorded) that I have nothing left for you except:
Posted five links and more since
gg 2 u, sir. get the balls to admit defeat and come back later. [/B]
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
exactly. its almost an unknown. Im not even debating religion right now, im debating that someone must have made it. you can pick... alien.. allah.. whatever. If you want to debate why Jesus Christ is the best choice, we will start that up.
Considering Jesus doesn't match up by even the old Jewish standards, oh let's start this one up. Wanna go by the ancient hebrew or will you cling to the King James?
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio039.htm
I'll say it again: Knightfall has demonstrated no clue of what a mutation even MEANS
Links on info on one of the most famous experiments:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ceb/Majerus_review.pdf
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/Majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/moonshine.cfm
I had always heard the ice theory to be water vapor, but i'm thinking that one would have exactly the same effect on the other to the Ecology system. Losing that greenhouse effect would have shortened the lifespan of the dinosaurs as well as the life-span of humans. (which is a theory offered as to the gradual shortening of human life-spans, the drop off was a gradual thing following what, 500 years after the flood)
Isn't it true that reptiles grow for as long as they live? If a reptile lived, say 10x as long as a current one, what's to say it wouldn't just be a massive version of a smaller, easier to kill creature as well as this VERY interesting read that is not based on any form of christian science whatsoever. I highly recommend the read, i obviously haven't personally checked the sources, but true or not, its a fascinating read.
Originally posted by Lightsnake
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio039.htmI'll say it again: Knightfall has demonstrated no clue of what a mutation even [B]MEANS
Links on info on one of the most famous experiments:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ceb/Majerus_review.pdf
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/Majerus/Swedentalk220807.pdf
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/moonshine.cfm [/B]
....Please read all of those.
The Pepper Moth experiment demonstrates natural selection at work. Thing was, in a short time, all the moths were changing color to support the environment as more dominant genes passed on. That's how evolution works. Tiny little changes over long, long periods of time. Elephants have evolved smaller tusks in Africa now as poachers are killing the ones with bigger tusks.
and there is no way you read to everything related to genetics and evolution contained in those links in that time. I believe in a higher power, but the ignorance this is showing is...staggering.
well the idea is that since the ice retracted the light and compressed the air differently, the carbon 14 was in less/more quantities
Lord Knightfa11
you realize he doesn't have to bring EVERY species. he only needs to bring basic stuff, because like i said, evolution within species is enirely possible and probable.
Lord Knightfa11
The difference is that evolution is pure speculation on how our species came to existence. nobody was there, nobody can test it.
Truejedi:Jbill's suggestion, that we all live for ourselves and our own self-interest and pleasure would be destroyed.
I read the first two, your 3rd link is no good: permission denied or something, and the i saw that the 4th and 5th were also about the peppered moth, so i skimmed them for anything new. I happen to be a pretty fast reader, not gonna lie.
They didn't change color. The darker ones lived, and produced off-spring that were also dark. But at the end of the day, they were still moth's. No matter what, they were going to remain moth's.
This is going to be very controversial, but i gotta put it out there:
So lightsnake, if color changes shows natural selection, then tell me, why do we have more than one color of human? is THAT natural selection? does it mean that one of our species mutated from black to white, or white to black,and that species had a better chance of survival so it continued to produce? I think we widely consider blacks and whites ABSOLUTE equals, so why was there a need for a mutation from white to black, and if it didn't change anything about the species, why did it continue to exist, instead of blinking out like a useless anomaly very well should in natural selection?
Faunus
It takes as much faith to believe God exists than to say He doesn't. You can't prove that He doesn't, just like Knightfall can't prove that He does.
please. You can't prove there doesn't exist a God. its impossible to prove a negative. Your entire theory is based on a universe improving itself, which has been shown to be contrary to scientific law, so i would say there is an ENORMOUS flaw to evolution. Prove that one species created another species, and then you can create theories on how the universe, earth, and came to be filled with life utterly by the mathematics of chance.
This is a biocentric view- the presence or absence of life is not better or worse , it just is. To inject subjective values into the debate just clouds the issue. Also, the various theories discussed here will stand or fail on their own merit, regardless of how ideas contrived at a similar time-period fare in the scientific consensus. Big Bang Theory is irrelevant to a debate on Evolution. (but it is fun to talk about too.)
No animosity here though. I'm trying to stay tolerant. Lord Nightfa11 has ignored important points both from lightsnake and me, so I am getting a little frustrated. Like I said earlier- the brick wall awaits.
Originally posted by Jbill311I like the logic here: 1+1=2, but 1+1+1+1+1+1+1=/=7. The very IDEA of evolution is that the small, incremental changes adds up to diverse speciation.
Evolution is based on observations of our natural world. There is evidence for it, or else Darwin wouldn't have had the idea. The two statements 'nobody was there' and 'nobody can test it' are only distantly related at best, and constitute a half truth when combined. No sentient, living being has had a lifespan long enough to measure the glacial change of species, true, but we don't have to be there to know that something happened. No one has ever seen a star up close, (other than the sun) but few Fundamentalists are willing to argue that the stars at night are pinpricks in the sky showing the light of heaven. They accept the scientific instruments' readings showing that there are billions of stars in the universe. Spectrometry, radio-telescopes, and Hubble are not decried by religionists, and there is less evidence for creationism than there is for the 'fireflies that flew to high and got stuck up in that there big black thingy" -Timone. The Lion King.
I don't know exactly where you are going with that: but it seems to support creationism more than evolution... i mean, observations of our natural world have failed time and time again.... a science based on nothing but observation and intepretation is as fallacy filled as intepreting DE comics however the heck you want based on artwork (i could have had a better analogy but i decided to bring it back towards Star Wars just a little! 😄 )
The earth-centered view of the universe was based on observation: proved false:
The flat earth view was based on observation:
proved false:
Pluto was a planet based on observation:
proved false.
That list could go on forever. I would say your argument especially helps creationism....
i mean c'mon...
No sentient, living being has had a lifespan long enough to measure the glacial change of species, true, but we don't have to be there to know that something happened.
sounds like a page right out of Knightfall's and my side to me. That's what we've been saying. We don't have to have been there to know SOMETHING designed the universe. You say it was mathematical odds and natural selection, we say it was intelligent design. I don't see how your argument helps your side at all.
(and notice we are back here again tonight... once again i have homework tomorrow... this is just too much fun tho.)
Originally posted by truejediThey didn't change color. The darker ones lived, and produced off-spring that were also dark. But at the end of the day, they were still moth's. No matter what, they were going to remain moth's.
Originally posted by truejedi
So lightsnake, if color changes shows natural selection, then tell me, why do we have more than one color of human? is THAT natural selection? does it mean that one of our species mutated from black to white, or white to black,and that species had a better chance of survival so it continued to produce? I think we widely consider blacks and whites ABSOLUTE equals, so why was there a need for a mutation from white to black, and if it didn't change anything about the species, why did it continue to exist, instead of blinking out like a useless anomaly very well should in natural selection?
Evolution is frequently anthropomorphized, and it leads to confusion like this. It isn't an inexorable crawl to perfection, it is the magnification of what works. In equatorial zones, there is a lot harsher sunlight for more of the year. Individuals with greater melanin (skin pigment) fared better than those without, leading to the general darkening of those races' skin tones. As mankind moved north, the pigment was not as important, and the long winters moved the skin tone toward the white part of the spectrum. The only reason that whites were technologically superior to the Africans (blacks) was the almost perfect combination of geographic features of Europe. The abundance of cereal grains, farm animals, and ideal climate for totalitarian agriculture led to massive technological advances, especially guns. The documentary/feature 'Guns Germs and Steel' is a fantastic resource for anyone wondering why Europeans took over the world.
