PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My gluteous. Your posts are becoming shorter and shorter.

Are you quitting making baby steps?

All of your claims have been refuted, except for those that refuted claims nobody had made. And you don't address the replies.

So what next?

I know that taking your claims back isn't an option (i've known some creationists already).

Creationists have the most funny sense of skepticism.

Everything we see around us speaks of Evolution. Yet it must be false, because it would go against some old book that must be true because it says so itself.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:15 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I'll say one thing in his defense, he did raise an interesting question:  Why did it take Man so long to develop civilization?  And when it did happen, it happened several times independently over a ralatively short span of several thousand years.  So there must have been a triggering event/events.

Now I'm not saying that it disproves evolution and proves Creationism.  Not at all.  On the contrary, I believe it shows another example of evolutionary forces at work.  There's ample evidence to show that H sapiens has been around for a much longer time than the Bible states.  The development of agriculture shows an unconscious selection process by people that allowed the domestication of grain plants.

I would guess the development of civilization involved a number of factors besides just climate change, although that might have been a major factor.  But climate changes haave occured earlier and had not impact on civilization starting.  What made the end of the last ice age different?

It's just like looking at what factors caused the 'Cambrian Explosion' 550 mya.  No one knows yet for sure what caused it, and there is certainly debate.  It looks like it followed on the heels of a thawing from a global glaciation period.  Perhaps the level of oxygen in the oceans reached a crucial level that allowed animals to develop to larger size and hard shells/skeletons - leaving more easily fossilized remains than their earlier soft-bodied ancestors.

Interesting questions.  But we don't just throw up our hands and say 'God must be responsible for it' and leave it at that.  There's a natural explanation for these puzzles, and clues for what happen do exists.  That's what makes science so much fun.

I remember when I was little, I was facinated with dinosaurs, as a lot of kids are.  But I remember wondering 'why did they all die off?  What happened to them?'  So you could imagine my excitement ('Ah ha!') when I heard about the discovery of the thin iridium layer at the K-T boundary by Walter & Luis Alvarez, and the proposed asteroid impact theory.  Then the discovery of the Chicxulub crater on the Yacatan peninsula.  All the pieces fell nicely togehter.  Science had solved one of the burning questions I had from my childhood.  Pretty cool stuff.

Of course now there are questions if the asteroid impact was the sole cause of the dinosaur demise.  Maybe there were other factors involved.  But a major piece of the puzzle was found.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:47 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thank Orion for being objective(although I may not be as much). He did quote
"Interesting questions.  But we don't just throw up our hands and say 'God must be responsible for it' and leave it at that.  There's a natural explanation for these puzzles, and clues for what happen do exists.  That's what makes science so much fun."
Could there be a Supernatural explaination as well?
Is all there is completely knowable by our 5 senses? Do other realms exist outside the boundaries of our 5 senses? If you can confidently say no, then perhaps evolution is genuine.


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 6:06 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There could be thousands of supernatural explanations.

I could give you half a dozen off the top of my head.

But we don't need to resort to them.

The only thing that makes your particular supernatural explanation somewhat special is its adepts.

The number of its adepts is a historical issue . It has nothing to do with reason.

Do other realms exist outside the boundaries of our 5 senses?
Yes. We have the realm of equilibrium. We have the realm of temperature. We have the realm of hunger and asphyxia.

Not only we have more than 5 senses. Science gives us new tools akin to senses (like a Geiger counter).

But even then, my answer remains a "yes". I'm sure of it.

The only reason why we don't have access to "other realms" in our normal consciousness is that such a thing provided no evolutionary advantage.

Evolution gives us a perfect explanation for the limitation of the realms we can "see".

Everything we see passes through the screen of our senses and our survival machine minds (if something can't be eaten, can't harm us, can't be fucked, can't teach you something useful for survival, you tend to ignore it by refusing to even give it a name).

Knowing Evolution gives you the tools to break free from its laws, while enjoying the "good stuff" (like sex and love and intelligence).

I refuse to let passing-my-genes the reason of my existence. A biological imperative isn't good enough for me. But Christian motivations are even worse than that, in my opinion.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:43 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is there such a thing as 'Dark Matter'?  We can't detect it, but most of the universe may be made up of that stuff.  It can be inferred from its gravitational affect on visible matter.  

And then there's 'Dark Energy'.  The adjective 'Dark' just means it's matter and energy we can't detect yet, but we infer it.  It may be the glue that holds galaxies together, and the scaffolding that holds clusters of galaxies together.  

I don't know a lot about it.  It's an area of active research among cosmologists.

Gluteus - Science has never dectected supernatural beings.  That doesn't mean they/He/She don't exist.  It just means we can't detect them.  They exist outside the natural world, if they exist at all.  Thus the name 'supernatural' - beyond nature.  That's the main reason why Creationism can't be taught as a scientific theory.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:15 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The only reason why we don't have access to "other realms" in our normal consciousness is that such a thing provided no evolutionary advantage. "

Did you ever think that we cannot access the other realms and dimensions is because God has limited us to the 4D world we live in? You refuse to admit to the possibility that there are other dimensions out there of the supernatural realm, that we are perfect beings in that all we can sense is all there is. I think you are short changing yourself but is prob due to the fact you are an atheist?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:16 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus:Did you ever think that we cannot access the other realms and dimensions is because God has limited us to the 4D world we live in? You refuse to admit to the possibility that there are other dimensions out there of the supernatural realm, that we are perfect beings in that all we can sense is all there is. I think you are short changing yourself but is prob due to the fact you are an atheist?


Gluteus, none of us are ruling out supernatural explanations.  What we are ruling out is supernatural explanations being used to explain phenomena in the science class.  For all we know, an invisible pink unicorn or a spagetti monster or a long-haired, itinerant rabbi who can do magic tricks, are/is the glue that holds the galaxys together.  Butttt...With out scientific evidence to support the existence of any of the above mentioned, supernatural beings, none has a place in the science class.  

Capiche?



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 8:54 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
They exist outside the natural world, if they exist at all.
Existing outside our world is pretty much what we call "not existing".

Otherwise the word "exist" loses its meaning.

Did you ever think that we cannot access the other realms and dimensions is because God has limited us to the 4D world we live in?
Yes, i have. But i think a lot of silly things that i don't believe.

You refuse to admit to the possibility that there are other dimensions out there of the supernatural realm,
Did i? When??

that we are perfect beings in that all we can sense is all there is.
What? Man, you need to start reading. We are far from perfect. We were made by Evolution, so our biological goal is to pass our genes. And Evolution tends not to give you more than what you need to accomplish that task. That's why we are so limited.

And there's lots more than what we can see.
I don't even have doubts about it. I'm sure of it. But i don't call that "supernatural" because it's a stupid word.

And i don't like your use of the word "see". Because your phrases apply to trivial things like time, space, and air.

I think you are short changing yourself but is prob due to the fact you are an atheist?
You don't know anything about "facts". Specially about me. Stop pretending you do, will ya?

And start reading other threads. Learn why creationists can't answer our rebuttals. Try to answer any of them, if you wish.

Avoid flawed math if possible.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:40 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
They exist outside the natural world, if they exist at all.


Existing outside our world is pretty much what we call "not existing".

Otherwise the word "exist" loses its meaning.

Wisp - you got me there.  But I don't know how else a supernatural entity could be - but outside the natural world.  I guess I don't really have a good definition of what it means to be a supernatural entity.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:18 AM on February 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 6:16 PM on February 22, 2009 :

Did you ever think that we cannot access the other realms and dimensions is because God has limited us to the 4D world we live in?


With high enough energy we may be able to access the higher dimensions that M-Theory is showing us.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:42 AM on February 23, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For a quick point on Supernaturalsim, all the thousands who have recounted ghostly apparitions, spirits, poltergeists, temporarily dead out of body experiences, are all these for naught?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 4:41 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Most certainly, they are.

If any of that was true, our scientists would have had a military, medicinal or commercial use for ghosts.

gluteous, are you a bible literalist? Do you know that your Bible says that when people die, they just die, and that the dead know nothing?
That would go on until the final judgement.

I'll put it in words you can understand: if you believe in ghosts you don't believe in the Bible.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:09 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, if you don't believe in the Bible, and have proof of ghosts, spirit, out of body experiences or whatever, James Randi will give you a million bucks.

www.randi.org



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:12 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ghostly apparitions, spirits, poltergeists, temporarily dead out of body experiences

There is no hard evidence that these things exist.  They're just like UFO (as in ET) sightings.  Maybe people saw something they can't explain, but it doesn't mean that their conclusions are correct.  

Heck, I even know someone who believes that the Apollo moon landings were a fake.  He believes they went into orbit around the earth, but never went to the moon.  I just pointed out to him that if that was so, then how does he explain radio communications with the astronauts as they went to the moon, and around it.  Even amateurs tracked them to the moon.  Never mind all the thousands of scientists and engineers that would have to be in on such a conspiracy.  It just amazes me the garbage people will believe in.  Of course, then a lot of these people probably read the National Enquirer as their source of factual information.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:54 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Remember, it was the National Enquirer that broke the story about Monica Lewinsky. ~~~
I am not sure all ghost experiences can be explained away, trained Air Force pilots seeing out worldly "aircraft" etc

I did believe in Evolution because it is widely if not entirely propagated by the media, textbooks and TV. But then I got reading about that it's just a theory and not provable. So I delved in and now I am at a crossroads leaning toward the Bible. The astronomical odds are what is leading me down this road. Also the fundamental question which I've yet heard an explaination, How did creation all start, did we get life out of non-life? How it that possible? Remember the law of entropy, disorder is the default state of existence.


(Edited by gluteus_maximus 2/23/2009 at 6:34 PM).
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 6:30 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't elude the question.

Do you believe in ghosts?

Do you believe in the Bible?

Did you even read the Bible?

Do you know that a scientific theory isn't a hypothesis?

Did you know that all claims about astronomical odds have been debunked?

Did you know that the law of entropy doesn't state that everything decays?

Did you know that some things can get more ordered with a proper energy input?

What do you mean by saying that "disorder is the default state of existence"??? If the global tendency is towards disorder, how can disorder be the default state????

Man, you talk a lot more than you know.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:53 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have open mind about "Ghosts", I believe in the spiritual world. I do believe in the bible, I am NOT an atheist.
"astronomical odds have been debunked"
Oh really, you didn't respond to my "flipping coins" scenario to any satisfaction.
So how do we get life out of non-life, like from a rock?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 6:58 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I did believe in Evolution because it is widely if not entirely propagated by the media, textbooks and TV. But then I got reading about that it's just a theory and not provable.

gluteus - when you make such statements as the one above, it shows you don't really understand what Evolution is, or what a scientific theory is.  Then you go on to sprout nonsense about entropy and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.  You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

If you don't know the basic facts and theory behind evolution, how can you expect to debate it intelligently?  You're just showing us on this forum that you understand very little about science or the topic you are debating.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:14 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What, I can't have a say why I do not believe in Evolution? A few basic questions, How do we get life out of non-life, like from a rock?
I ask the basic questions to see if I get satisfying answers, so far, not.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:13 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteous

I did believe in Evolution because it is widely if not entirely propagated by the media, textbooks and TV.


You forgot to mention all the highly respected scientific journals.


But then I got reading about that it's just a theory and not provable.


Provability is not what makes for good scientific theories. You clearly do not understand scientific method. One good way to evaluate a scientific theory is to see how many scientists are trying to disprove it.

You dont have to believe in evolution. No-one cares what you (or I) 'believe'.  

It does matter, however, that scientific method is what should properly be taught in science classes. Evolution is an excellent example of a theory formed objectively based on observation and inductive reasoning that has proved to be a powerful predictive tool in biological research. Creation is none of the above and therefore of little value as an example of scientific method.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 8:33 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But Evolution leaves a giant hole in it's core. That's why I am shaking my head. What is/was the starting point for all life? This is a crucial point. In the very beginning, what did life evolve from? There was nothing in the beginning, but how you get something out of Nothing? Do you think life could originate spontaneously? It seems pretty extreme to believe that it could.



 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:00 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:00 PM on February 23, 2009 :
Do you think life could originate spontaneously? It seems pretty extreme to believe that it could.


On another thread I wrote the following: If you've been following recent threads, you've seen the following demonstrated:  production of highly complex biological precursors on interstellar ice surfaces, delivery to earth of such chemicals on meteorites, concentration of such chemicals in pores of minerals, formation of lipid bilayers (cell walls), and a replicating RNA molecule that appeared when a bunch of it's components were poured together.

In just the last few days a breakthrough discovery was made on the self assembling nature of a ribosome:


Origin of Life On Earth: Scientists Unlock Mystery Of Molecular Machine

What are you looking for?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:43 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 5:30 PM on February 23, 2009 :
Remember the law of entropy, disorder is the default state of existence.


What is the "law of entropy"?

Do you know that space is full of complex organic molecules?  How do you think they formed?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:47 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteous

You think that a theory that 'explains' biological diversity should also explain how life came into being in the first place. Not many scientists would agree with you.

Here is a sound scientific observation..  all furry animals have four legs, they have a head at one end and a tail at the other, They all have essentially the same mechanism for regulating their body temperature, they all have basically the same set of vital organs that all work in much the same way and their body layouts are remarkably similar. They are obviously very much alike... and yet.. externally they are as different as mice and dolphins (well a dolphin isnt furry but the rest is the same). Why is it so?

You could say "That is just how God made it." and that is fine as a 'faith statement' but it is not very useful to a scientist who wants to...  lets say...  go searching for fossils of a particular type or who is trying to understand the course of an epidemic like AIDS.

At the risk of repeating myself..  what you believe (or can't believe) is of little matter to science and the fact that you (or anyone)believe in creation is not justification for teaching it as science. To justify teaching creation in science it needs to be demonstrated that the theory exemplifies how the scientific method has been applied and how the theory works as an explanatory and predictive tool in science.






-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 10:07 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis - very interesting (and exciting) article about ribosomes.  I'll have to read up some more on it.  Thanks.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:27 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have open mind about "Ghosts", I believe in the spiritual world.
Your sacred book condemns open minds.

I do believe in the bible, I am NOT an atheist.
I'm pretty sure that most of those who believe in God don't believe in the Bible.

That would include you, ghost believer. You DON'T believe in the Bible. The Bible states clearly that when you die, that's all. Until the final judgment.

"astronomical odds have been debunked"
Oh really, you didn't respond to my "flipping coins" scenario to any satisfaction.
Ok. I'll respond.

Your coin flipping scenario doesn't apply to chemistry, which isn't about "random" processes, but have quite precise laws.

Did i respond to your satisfaction?
I bet not.
I don't feel like explaining high school chemistry to someone who obviously doesn't care.

So how do we get life out of non-life, like from a rock?
Be honest, man. YOU DON'T CARE!

I could tell you, and you wouldn't care.

It could be shown to you, and you wouldn't care.

What, I can't have a say why I do not believe in Evolution?
You're dishonest about why you don't believe in Evolution.

But Evolution leaves a giant hole in it's core. That's why I am shaking my head. What is/was the starting point for all life?
Giant hole? What's the matter? You swallow creationism in spite of the many giant craters (and in spite of not even believing in the Bible).

This is a crucial point.
Yes, but not a crucial point regarding EVOLUTION!

Evolution is about the change of the frequencies of alleles in populations over time, and mutations, and the differential survival rate which is the core of natural selection.
I think that's it.

Bear this in mind, if you have room:
If the beginning of life was set by a magical being, an alien, or God Himself, it wouldn't matter to the Theory of Evolution. It would still be true.

Get it?
Please, get it...

In the very beginning, what did life evolve from?
Self replicating chemicals.

How interested are you, really?

There was nothing in the beginning,
What's your source? The Bible?
but how you get something out of Nothing?
Did you move the subject to Big Bang???
Do you think life could originate spontaneously?
Depends on your definition of "spontaneous".
It seems pretty extreme to believe that it could.
Are your beliefs less extreme?

Please, share them with us.

Many creationists (like yourself) conceal their beliefs so they can attack science without getting exposed. So their contradictions are not evident.

But your contradictory beliefs in ghosts and the Bible slipped out.

If you really tell us your beliefs (instead of your dishonest "doubts"), we'll find many more.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:05 AM on February 24, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well it's like 5 against one so I can't not respond to all the charges. I will have to cherry pick. As I said I bought into evolution since it was ubiquitous.  But then I looked a little closer and saw not was all cut & dry. You hold that against impossible odds, complex life forms and forms in the most absolutely amazing of complex ways. And all done without a mind. Perhaps try to find a working computer out in the wild and assume it was created without a designer.
2 other points I want to bring up but first go ahead and refute the above.


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:20 PM on February 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No problem.

You hold that against impossible odds, complex life forms and forms in the most absolutely amazing of complex ways.
No. You showed us clearly that you don't know about odds. You don't care about math, or science.

Once self-replicators appear (even simple ones), the process goes on. Copy failure and selection brings us Evolution.

And all done without a mind.
Ok, you got one thing right.

Perhaps try to find a working computer out in the wild and assume it was created without a designer.
A computer is not a self-replicator.

So you don't know what you're talking about.

Self-replicators are the only valid example.

So, won't you tell us what YOU believe?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:28 PM on February 24, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you know a computer is NOT a self replicator? Perhaps on some distant world they are? And if so, could something as complex as a computer come into being without a mind?

Of course I care about math, I know what impossible odds are, do you dare admit to yourself how impossible and extremely highly improbable odds in the face?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:00 PM on February 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you know a computer is NOT a self replicator?
Huh?

Because they don't replicate?

Perhaps on some distant world they are?
Are we talking about computers here?
And if so,
No! Not so!
could something as complex as a computer come into being without a mind?
Yes! It could, it can, and it happens everyday.

You came into being. No mind was involved, except your parents having sex.

Speaking of which:
What were the odds of your particular sperm finding your mother's egg?

In a single ejaculation up to 500 million sperms are released.

But that's not it.
Do you know how slim were the odds that your father produced your particular sperm during meiosis? The same goes about your mother's egg.

But that's not it.
Do you know that your father probably ejaculated more than once? And that your mother produced many eggs?

But that's not it.
Do you know that your parents had parents?

Give me the most optimistic odds that you could have been born.

Believe me, life arising is far more likely than you being here.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:15 PM on February 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When are you going to tell us what you believe?

You know what we believe. At least regarding the subject of this debate.

We don't (because creationists disagree about lots of things).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:17 PM on February 24, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The getting pregnant analogy does not apply but serves to steer my point off topic. Kind of juvenile in fact.  500,000,000 sperm going after an egg equates to HIGHLY probable chance of 1 hitting the mark. Just look at the rate of pregnancy in the world!
As for a computer replicating, I was giving you a scenario, if the materials a computer is made from could mutate  on some distant world, you're saying a fully formed working computer could form on it's own? by itself.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:27 PM on February 24, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 7:00 PM on February 24, 2009 :
Of course I care about math, I know what impossible odds are, do you dare admit to yourself how impossible and extremely highly improbable odds in the face?


If you mix a mole of oxygen with two moles of hydrogen and ignite them, the odds of any two hydrogen atoms combining with a specific oxygen atom are astronomical.  That's what you are calculating.

The odds of them combining with an oxygen atom are pretty high.

It's called chemistry.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:29 PM on February 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways
You're being too specific. Just like i was when i went over the chances of YOU being here.

If you see the landing of a golf ball, you can check the precise leaf of grass it landed on.
And you can say "How amazing! There are many millions of leaves of grass in this court, and it landed on this one!! It has to mean purpose!".

Put like this you probably realize how wrong it is.

The getting pregnant analogy does not apply
Haha! xD
but serves to steer my point off topic.
The word is "twist".
500,000,000 sperm going after an egg equates to HIGHLY probable chance of 1 hitting the mark.
Man, that's what we've been telling you all along!

Seemingly you only listen to yourself.

When you calculate (copypaste) the odds for a specific protein to form, you want specific. You got the odds for a SPECIFIC protein.

Nevermind if that protein only forms in living creatures and has little to do with how life arose.

Now when i go over the odds of YOU being here, suddenly you change your expectations, and generic is ok.

Any sperm could have hit any egg, and it would be the same to you. Except that you wouldn't be here. Minor issue, right?


So... WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TELL US WHAT YOU BELIEVE?


(Edited by wisp 2/24/2009 at 8:45 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:38 PM on February 24, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What about my computer analogy?

I am starting not to believe in evolution, no matter how you TWIST the odds, it is way improbable that
the proteins, amino acids all formed in just the right way to produce highly complex life. It's a miracle.  Also the aspect of irreducible complexity kind of seals the deal for me.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:00 PM on February 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus - when wisp used his example of the odds of you being born, those were astronomical odds - not just 500 million to 1.  He was talking about YOU in particular.  Any combination of sperm and egg are going to end up creating a different person.  The odds of someone being born from you mom and dad are actually pretty good.  But the odds of YOU or ME or wisp or apoapsis in particular are astronomical.  But SOMEONE is going to be born.  

The same applies to proteins.  There may be an astronomical number of combinations of a 500-amino acid sequence of protein.  Maybe not each sequence is viable for a particular function.  But I would bet that there are many possible sequences of proteins that can perform a particular function.  Remember the ATP binding protein example?

The point is, your probability example is looking at the problem backwards, and doesn't even take into account all the factors involved in protein selection and creation.  So your probability example is worthless, though Creationists love to use it to impress people who don't know any bettter.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:05 PM on February 24, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 5:30 PM on February 23, 2009 :
The astronomical odds are what is leading me down this road.


Can you show how you calculated these odds?  Maybe you made an error.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:05 PM on February 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What about my computer analogy?
Ok, ok! Yes! If your computer is an imperfect self-replicator, it will evolve.

Imperfect self-replicators evolve, no matter what they're made of.

They can even be virtual, like memes and swimbots.

Here: http://www.swimbots.com

Self-replicating virtual creatures in a water-like 2D environment.

Some great bugs have evolved in my computer.

You won't get the same as biological evolution, but it's still evolution.

I am starting not to believe in evolution,
Oh, no!
no matter how you TWIST the odds, it is way improbable that
the proteins, amino acids all formed in just the right way to produce highly complex life.
With no intermediate steps? You're damn right it's improbable. And that's not how it happened.

It's a miracle.
That word only means ignorance.
And i don't mean that as an insult.

Also the aspect of irreducible complexity kind of seals the deal for me.
Would you mind to show us some example of irreducible complexity?
Some that has not been debunked, preferably.

So, gluteous. What's wrong with telling us what you believe?
Would you feel too exposed or something?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:23 PM on February 24, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I told you what I believe. I used to believe in Evolution, but now I am leaning toward creationism. I believe in God. I am not Godless.

As for irreducible complexity,  how could a cell ever have been evolved from a simple to a complex form if it only functions as a whole? This goes for alot of things , like a mouse trap, you know that example I am sure. In a cell, any one of the hundreds of parts that developed must have known what was to evolve as part of the cell in order to grow and support the function of the future part? How is this?


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 6:49 PM on February 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I told you what I believe.
Actually no.
I used to believe in Evolution,
Doesn't qualify.
but now I am leaning toward creationism.
Which version? Adam and Eve, and Noah, and the 6k years and stuff?
I believe in God. I am not Godless.
What's that have to do with anything?
As for irreducible complexity,  how could a cell ever have been evolved from a simple to a complex form if it only functions as a whole?
Easy: That's a lie. Lots of cells can have malfunction parts and it's not big deal.
This goes for alot of things , like a mouse trap, you know that example I am sure.
Yeeeeah... Kind of a bad example.

You can take the wooden board off the mouse trap, and nail it to the ground. It would work, you know? Just put some cheese, load it, and presto!

Anyway no cell is remotely close to a mouse trap.
In a cell, any one of the hundreds of parts that developed must have known what was to evolve as part of the cell in order to grow and support the function of the future part?
Not really. Lots of times cells just don't know what is best. And they fuck up big time.

The owner of such cells usually dies.
How is this?
Natural selection.

You see, sometimes we do lose something. Like the ability to make our own vitamin C.

If we didn't have access to fruits with that vitamin we wouldn't have died. The individuals with such a deficiency would have disappeared.

Most animals, from the simple to the complex, have useless part. That reminds us of its evolutionary path.

It's not that hard to understand. You should try.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:00 PM on February 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, does "leaning" mean that you don't know?

I wouldn't mock you for being honest and say that you don't know.

Honesty is something i highly appreciate.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:02 PM on February 25, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I always believed in God, and thought that evolution was his plan. The latter I am now doubting.
So you're saying that the hundreds of parts of a cell formed into a useless clump until future parts formed and suddenly the cell starts functioning as a bonified cell?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:09 PM on February 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 6:09 PM on February 25, 2009 :

So you're saying that the hundreds of parts of a cell formed into a useless clump until future parts formed and suddenly the cell starts functioning as a bonified cell?


When one sugar crystal starts in a jar of honey, it will grow and the whole jar will crystallize.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:49 PM on February 25, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteus
So you're saying that the hundreds of parts of a cell formed into a useless clump until future parts formed and suddenly the cell starts functioning as a bonified cell?


That isnt how it worked in evolution. Sounds more like a 'creation scenario' to me and I wholeheartedly agree that it sounds impossible.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 9:41 PM on February 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus_maximus:
I always believed in God, and thought that evolution was his plan. The latter I am now doubting.
You're doubting... But what do you know? Anything at all?

What do you believe?

You said you were leaning towards creationism.
Ok, which branch?

You believe in God, ok, that's one thing. But i was actually interested in knowing what do you believe that happened.

Ok, creation. How much time? What steps? What happened afterwards? Did God create 160 elephant species at the begining? Or did they develop somehow? Did God create lions in the beginning? What about parasites?

So you're saying that the hundreds of parts of a cell formed into a useless clump until future parts formed and suddenly the cell starts functioning as a bonified cell?
No.

Imperfect self-replicators in every step of the way. Imperfect but functional self-replicators.

Chemical evolution happened before biological evolution. But that's not part of the Theory of Evolution.

I told you what i believe. Your turn.
And stop repeating that you believe in God. I got it.

Did He create the Universe personally? Did He make Adam and Eve?


(Edited by wisp 2/26/2009 at 03:48 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:22 PM on February 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, creation. How much time? What steps? What happened afterwards? Did God create 160 elephant species at the begining? Or did they develop somehow? Did God create lions in the beginning? What about parasites?


So what if gluteus hasn't quite worked out the entire picture yet (or maybe he has) -you don't have a beginning to your evolution story and you're quite happy to take it from there -an enormous leap of faith I'd say!

Chemical evolution happened before biological evolution. But that's not part of the Theory of Evolution.


But you are sure that that is what happened - but knowing that it is a step of faith in itself  causes evolutionists to attempt to remove it from the equation while accepting it as truth nonetheless. So is it science or is it faith? Is it science or is it every bit as religious a worldview as Christianity? Perhaps you'll forgive us for believing that Jesus walked on the water or rose from the dead especially since there were witnesses, while you carry on believing in chemical evolution despite its obvious problems and in the absence of witnesses of any kind -not even a history book like the Bible to lend any credence to your belief system.
Our book says God created different kinds of animals that reproduce 'after their kind'. That's all we ever see so our book seems reliable at this point. Imagining the big link between all life forms is the part of your faith that remains to be observed and repeated. In the meantime, you'll have to stick with your faith and we'll stick with the scientific observations that verify our faith.

Believing in evolution is the easy road -everyone agrees with you, you remain politically correct and smug in your presumed higher intellectual faculties while imagining that everyone that disagrees with you is a virtual moron and fundamentally incapable of understanding evolution. What a life!





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:23 AM on February 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:23 AM on February 26, 2009 :
So is it science or is it faith? Is it science or is it every bit as religious a worldview as Christianity?


The ability to reproduce major steps makes it a science.

Would you like to learn about them?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:57 AM on February 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So what if gluteus hasn't quite worked out the entire picture yet
Nothing. It's ok. I just want to know if he has worked SOMETHING out.
(or maybe he has)
If that's the case, i believe he wouldn't say he was "leaning" towards creationism. But i might be wrong.
you don't have a beginning to your evolution story
You're actually asking for a prequel.
and you're quite happy to take it from there -an enormous leap of faith I'd say!
You keep saying that... It gets boring...

My evolutionary view of the development of life is guided by understanding and evidence. It's the opposite of faith. The EXACT opposite.

Chemical evolution happened before biological evolution.
But you are sure that that is what happened
Almost. I can't leave out the possibility of aliens dropping some tons of self-replicators (or even primitive cells) on Earth. But that's not what this forum is about.
but knowing that it is a step of faith in itself  causes evolutionists to attempt to remove it from the equation while accepting it as truth nonetheless.
Faith?

No, pal. No faith. If you say it is, explain why. Don't say "knowing it's a step of faith".
So is it science or is it faith?
Science.
Is it science or is it every bit as religious a worldview as Christianity?
Science.
Perhaps you'll forgive us for believing that Jesus walked on the water or rose from the dead especially since there were witnesses,
Actually, i was meditating once on the possibility that one choses his own world. And our limitations are reflected in the world of our choice. I thought then that the only way to avoid the world's limitations, would be if that world is not yours. If you don't belong to it. Like if we could interact with flatlanders in a 2D world.
Then i remembered John 8:23 "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world."
I thought it would be cool if Jesus could really walk on water.
I thought it was very kind for someone to go to a lesser, boring world, to teach them something, even if one didn't have much to learn from it.

But chances are it's just a metaphor (water might mean passion, and walking over it without sinking could be a triumph over it), or a plain lie.

As for witnesses, there have been witnesses to miracles greater than Jesus'.

And there were quite different accounts from your 'witnesses'.
while you carry on believing in chemical evolution
Yeap. It's a good bet.
despite its obvious problems
Huh?
and in the absence of witnesses of any kind
I don't know how many kinds of witnesses there are, but chemical evolution has been observed.

Here's an article posted by orion:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

Besides, if you get home, open the door, and see everything is a mess, and the valuable items are missing, do you call 911 or not?

Will you say "I have no witnesses. I can't know what happened. There's no way to know if there was a robbery."?

not even a history book like the Bible to lend any credence to your belief system.
Can you rephrase that? I didn't get it. Sorry.

Our book says God created different kinds of animals that reproduce 'after their kind'. That's all we ever see so our book seems reliable at this point.
Is that so? The problem is that nobody seems to know what a 'kind' is.

How many elephant kinds are there? How many have existed?

Are kangaroos and wallabies one kind, or two?

What about dogs and wolves?

Cats and lions?

How many turtle kinds are there?

I'll check answersingenesis.org

I found something:
"According to evolution, the boundaries between kinds should blur as we look further and further back into their fossil history. It should get more and more difficult, for example, to tell cats from dogs and then mammals from reptiles, land animals from water animals, and finally life from non-life."

Well, this is correct. And it's exactly what we find!

But nevermind that. The disagreement between creationists is very serious.


That's the evolution tree VS. creationist orchard.

From here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/two-of-every-kind

Baraminology is the study of the biblical created kinds. The term baraminology is derived from the Hebrew words bara, which means “to create,” and min, which means “kind.” This field of study shows, for example, that the many dog species that we find throughout the world today—including the coyote, the wolf, the fox, the border collie, and the jackal—may all descend from one original created kind, created by God on Day 6 of Creation Week.


Well, it's quite obvious that some creationists believe not in ordinary evolution, but a superfast evolution!

Is THIS what you believe, Lester10, gluteous, timbrx?

No, timbrx specifically spoke against the possibility of extra-species, something...

Imagining the big link between all life forms is the part of your faith that remains to be observed and repeated.
Repeated?? The big link between all life forms, repeated? What are you talking about?

In the meantime, you'll have to stick with your faith and we'll stick with the scientific observations that verify our faith.
Our? You all have different faiths, based mostly upon ignorance. "I don't know" is the smartest thing you can say, and be in mutual agreement.

Have you told us what you believe yet? Or do you also have the cunning strategy of denouncing "problems" with Evolution, but offering nothing instead of it?

Please, give us a timeline or something. And tell us how many animals were aboard the ark. And if there were carnivores and parasites in the garden of Eden.

And who was the one that carried gonorrhea into the ark? It's a human disease. Someone must have carried it.

Believing in evolution is the easy road -everyone agrees with you, you remain politically correct and smug in your presumed higher intellectual faculties while imagining that everyone that disagrees with you is a virtual moron and fundamentally incapable of understanding evolution. What a life!
It was the hard road once. Remember?

It conquered it's way through lots of observation and thinking.

Easy doesn't mean wrong.

It's easy because it's supported by evidence.

You say that your faith is verified by scientific observations.
Well, tell us about your faith first.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:49 AM on February 26, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp,  Isn't it a coincidence that we have fruit trees when our bodies need the vitamins from them? That we have livestock to provide meat protein for our bodies? That our cuts and bruises heal. All these countless examples of the complexities of our bodies to form a near perfect specimen of a living form.   Just a coincidence right? And how do you explain our emotions, feelings, love? Do emotions evolve?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:29 PM on February 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey! You're not answering my questions!

But i'll answer yours.

Wisp,  Isn't it a coincidence that we have fruit trees when our bodies need the vitamins from them?
Hahaha! No, it's not!

We have a vitamin C issue: we can't make it. Most mammals can.

If we didn't have fruits with vitamin C at our disposition, we wouldn't have died. Only those first ones with that deficiency would have died, and their genes wouldn't have made it.

Unfortunately, we did have access to fruits with vitamin C. And now we're fucked up.

Learn your basics.

As for other vitamins needed, well, our design isn't the best. Lots of animals live on just one type of food, and they fare well. Damn, some even fare well eating nothing but grass!!

That we have livestock to provide meat protein for our bodies?
I don't eat animals. You disgust me.
That our cuts and bruises heal.
Sigh... Some people don't heal well. They die. Their genes don't make it in the gene pool.
All these countless examples of the complexities of our bodies to form a near perfect specimen of a living form.
What??? We???? Man, we suck. I suck. My back is killing me right now.

FYI, a specimen is an individual. So "our" bodies don't form a specimen.

Just a coincidence right?
Not at all. The Theory of Evolution accounts for all of them easily.
And how do you explain our emotions, feelings, love? Do emotions evolve?
Most certainly.

Name emotions. I'll tell you the evolutionary reasons for each one of them.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:51 PM on February 26, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.