Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Evolution/Creation debate


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/18/2014 9:06:43 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

What is reality exactly? In your oh so intelligent Opinion?
Why? Haven't you taken a look around lately?

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 541
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/18/2014 9:08:21 PM   
Dvr22999874


Posts: 2849
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline 		I always thought jesus, or whatever his name was, was a jew and very orthodox too. So shouldn't so-called christians be jews too ? Or should they be 'paulsians' or 'petersians' maybe ? They were the two con-men who really got the ball rolling on the whole circus. They saw there was a buck to be made and they made it.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 542
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/18/2014 9:19:21 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
I can answer all your questions, you have asked nothing that can't be answered. So stop playing this silly game and make your point.
;-)


Then answer them, I'm still waiting for the answers.

Okay, I'll answer your silly questions.
Do you know what a strawman is? Yes

If you think that Christianity exists how do you deal with the fact that Christians have to make human sacrifices every night because they believe the sun won't come up otherwise? I don't have to deal with the fact that Christians have to make human sacrifices every night because they believe the sun won't come up otherwise, because it isn't a fact.

Where's the mountains of dead bodies? There are no mountains of dead bodies.

Where are all the bloody altars? There are no bloody altars.

Where are all the dead homosexuals? There many dead homosexuals and I would say most of them are in graves.

You can't even point to one mass grave of homosexuals you killed can you? I can't point to one mass grave of homosexuals I killed, mainly because I have killed no homosexuals, let alone kill a mass amount.

I've answered all your questions, it was easy. Are you happy now or you going to continue to play this silly game?
;-)

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 543
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/18/2014 9:32:05 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874
I always thought jesus, or whatever his name was, was a jew and very orthodox too. So shouldn't so-called christians be jews too ? Or should they be 'paulsians' or 'petersians' maybe ? They were the two con-men who really got the ball rolling on the whole circus. They saw there was a buck to be made and they made it.
This is getting a little off topic but yes, Jesus was a Jew and what some would call a "very orthodox" Jew. Things changed with Jesus because Jesus fulfilled the Law, which the Jews had taken to worshiping rather than God and with that fulfilling, the Law was done away with and Christianity became the new "religion" of God.

As for Paul and Peter, they remained relatively poor and did not "make a buck" from the truth. It fact it is reported that Paul supported himself by tent making and preached for free, much like Jesus did.
;-)

(in reply to Dvr22999874)
Profile   Post #: 544
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/18/2014 9:34:35 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
The modern misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as the Myth of the Flat Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth


1. I know I just taught somebody that recently, wasn't it you?

2. The Dark Ages (which I was talking about) were over for hundreds of years by the time of Columbus.

3. Go read the rest of your link about how the Dark Ages flat earth scholarship was Bible based. You'll see Plato and Aristotle listed as sources for spherical earth theory. Flat earth theory, that came straight out of the Bible according to your source:

"However, a "flattist" approach was more or less shared by all the Fathers coming from the Syriac area, who were more inclined to follow the letter of the Old Testament."

< Message edited by GotSteel -- 2/18/2014 9:49:07 PM >

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 545
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/18/2014 9:48:02 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
I don't have to deal with the fact that Christians have to make human sacrifices every night because they believe the sun won't come up otherwise, because it isn't a fact.


Precisely, when someone makes up a strawman of your position this answer which you gave is an appropriate answer.

This is why when you were attributing ideas to evolution that "evolutionists" don't believe numerous people were giving you the same answer you just gave:
quote:


the answer is your "fact" is not a fact. Evolution does not work like that.




(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 546
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/19/2014 12:52:32 AM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline 		I was wondering when someone would mirror the adolescent debate tactics against evolution and biology. Still missing, "So's your Mother." And 'bounces off me and sticks to you'.
The proof of evolution, as with any theory of how things work, is to use it's ideas to predict yet unmade observations or experiments. Which have been done a Lot of times, most supporting Darwin, some led to complications of his ideas, a few have caused some rethinking. Currently most of Darwin's speculations have been borne out. Proof in the sense of geometric proofs won't exist, as there are no 'given' basic definitions and legal 'proof' is not quite what scientists consider useful, knowing juries well enough to not depend on them. As 'proof' of evolution is always a moving target, kept one or more steps past the last finding or fossil, demanding it in always new forms is the usual deviousness of the intellectually dishonest or damaged, in other words, a Ideologue.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 547
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/19/2014 1:26:07 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43
As 'proof' of evolution is always a moving target, kept one or more steps past the last finding or fossil, demanding it in always new forms is the usual deviousness of the intellectually dishonest or damaged, in other words, a Ideologue.


On the topic of the thread verall I didn't think it was a freat debate. Ken Ham is from a particularly dumb form of creationism and Bill Nye isn't terribly good at debating. The thing I found startling was how at the end Ken explained that there was no evidence that could change his mind and Bill explained how easily his mind could be changed.

(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 548
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/19/2014 4:19:48 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
The modern misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as the Myth of the Flat Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth


1. I know I just taught somebody that recently, wasn't it you?

2. The Dark Ages (which I was talking about) were over for hundreds of years by the time of Columbus.

3. Go read the rest of your link about how the Dark Ages flat earth scholarship was Bible based. You'll see Plato and Aristotle listed as sources for spherical earth theory. Flat earth theory, that came straight out of the Bible according to your source:

"However, a "flattist" approach was more or less shared by all the Fathers coming from the Syriac area, who were more inclined to follow the letter of the Old Testament."
Interestingly, you completely ignored this; "Early Christian Church
During the early Church period, with some exceptions, most held a spherical view, for instance, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose to name a few." but for you that is pretty much par for the course.
;-)

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 549
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/19/2014 5:43:31 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
Interestingly, you completely ignored this; "Early Christian Church
During the early Church period, with some exceptions, most held a spherical view, for instance, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose to name a few." but for you that is pretty much par for the course.
;-)


Nope you just failed at understanding things again, addressing that for you was the whole point of #3

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
3. Go read the rest of your link about how the Dark Ages flat earth scholarship was Bible based. You'll see Plato and Aristotle listed as sources for spherical earth theory. Flat earth theory, that came straight out of the Bible according to your source:


The science from the previous age was still around so scholars of the work of Plato, Aristotle, etc knew that the earth had been demonstrated to be spherical hundreds of years previous. Your link also points out that in the 1st century everyone had come to the point of accepting this.

After that there was a flat earth resurgence flying in the face of conclusive scientific evidence because of the Bible. That's right those who went with the Bible instead of science got demonstrable reality dead wrong. You know just like your creationism does now.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 550
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/19/2014 5:46:01 AM   
eulero83


Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
The modern misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as the Myth of the Flat Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth


1. I know I just taught somebody that recently, wasn't it you?

2. The Dark Ages (which I was talking about) were over for hundreds of years by the time of Columbus.

3. Go read the rest of your link about how the Dark Ages flat earth scholarship was Bible based. You'll see Plato and Aristotle listed as sources for spherical earth theory. Flat earth theory, that came straight out of the Bible according to your source:

"However, a "flattist" approach was more or less shared by all the Fathers coming from the Syriac area, who were more inclined to follow the letter of the Old Testament."
Interestingly, you completely ignored this; "Early Christian Church
During the early Church period, with some exceptions, most held a spherical view, for instance, Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose to name a few." but for you that is pretty much par for the course.
;-)



for most christians (catholics and orthodox) evolution is perfectly compatible with the christian faith e the bible. The fact the earth was spherical was very well known in greece and rome but later some people took the bilble and came up with the idea earth was flat despite proofs... sounds quite familiar

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 551
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/19/2014 6:31:03 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:
for most christians (catholics and orthodox) evolution is perfectly compatible with the christian faith e the bible. The fact the earth was spherical was very well known in greece and rome but later some people took the bilble and came up with the idea earth was flat despite proofs... sounds quite familiar


Most Christians don't take Genesis literally because it obviously is incompatible with reality.

(in reply to eulero83)
Profile   Post #: 552
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/19/2014 10:09:53 AM   
Tkman117


Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

What is reality exactly? In your oh so intelligent Opinion?
Why? Haven't you taken a look around lately?



I have, but according to you what I see around me is completely wrong. So what is right?

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 553
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/19/2014 4:08:44 PM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline 		Expanding on the idea of "Proof", which is claimed to be lacking of all Evolution ideas:
Again a basic hole in what should have been a comprehensive science curriculum in school. In other words, scientific illiteracy. There is NEVER "Proof" of any scientific theory or concept. What we call Laws are observed mathematical relationships to which there are no known exceptions. Boyles Law, Ohm's Law, etc. Which don't say Why, but do say What happens.
Science can Disprove things if they predict an experimental result which practice reveals to be at odds to the prediction. Newtonian physics gets us about the Solar system with exquisite precision describing orbital dynamics. Late ideas had to account for it's precision and explain More. It's got limits, as Velocity approaches C (Speed of light), odd things happen. Schweitzer's relativity formulas work so far, tests continue! Experiments support or disprove ideas, they never Prove them. At some point rational people recognize we have a pretty good working 'theory' and move on to more productive investigations at the edges of our understanding. Sophisticated molecular work has expanded inheritance beyond cromosomal DNA to include mitochrondal RNA and now other parts of organisms that are strongly suspected to be modifiable by the life experience of a parent organism between it's conception and it's begetting offspring. Which will elaborate Evolution, not invalidate the observed phenomena previously discovered.
All previous ideas of biology and inheritance fell far short of any reasonable standard of prediction of inheritance or explanation of observed life's relation each other and to known evidence of previous life. Darwin's Evolution and subsequent additions and understandings have done Quite well, thank you, but by no means are all possible new ideas excluded. However, the new ideas have to account for what we know now: the fossil record, observed biochemistry and chemical pathways that help understand relationships of life's many forms across geography and across time.
Creation is a Myth (explanatory story), or a creation of mens' mind, a magic invented to explain what is unpleasant or impossible to explain otherwise. Science deals with observable cause and effect, hidden all-powerful actors aren't accepted, as they 'explain' everything and nothing. Hidden omnipotent actors require Faith, not reason or experiments.
New theories (See the turmoil in Physics from the late 1800s to today) do happen, which find ways of explaining what an earlier theory did, and additional observations. Testing is in exploring the predictions and fine tuning the theories as observations accumulate. All very unsettling to minds that require absolute certainty and total stability of intellectual material. Sorry, the Universe and human understanding of it don't work like that.

< Message edited by epiphiny43 -- 2/19/2014 4:17:45 PM >

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 554
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/20/2014 4:45:17 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
I don't have to deal with the fact that Christians have to make human sacrifices every night because they believe the sun won't come up otherwise, because it isn't a fact.


Precisely, when someone makes up a strawman of your position this answer which you gave is an appropriate answer.

This is why when you were attributing ideas to evolution that "evolutionists" don't believe numerous people were giving you the same answer you just gave:
quote:


the answer is your "fact" is not a fact. Evolution does not work like that.

Thanks for finally getting to the point.
The trouble with your point is Evolution is pretty much make it up as you go along, which Christianity isn't or at least shouldn't be. It's hard to hit the moving target that is Evolution as it's constantly evolving. I keep getting the phrase, "Evolution doesn't work that way", that I'm beginning to think that Evolution doesn't work in any way.

So now let's see if we can get rid of that of that "strawman", and let you explain Evolution to me.

First, I look around and see every living thing has a different number of chromosomes and don't seem capable of mating with those with a differing number of chromosomes, even those with the same number of chromosomes don't seem capable of mating. Like a Red Panda and a Starfish both have 36 and mating would seem impossible. So my first question is; how does Evolution account for this great variety in the number of chromosomes and their inability mate outside their "species"?

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 555
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/20/2014 5:17:26 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		The same way that your liver cells are your liver cells, and not your lung cells, and they can't interchange.

Look at the variation in people, one white, one black, one yellow, one red, one albino.  Why should there not be a variation between us and the apes?

No two snowflakes are the same.    It requires no act of god.

Now, religion changes, and a great deal.  Even moreso than evolution changes things.

As for the number of chromosomes, if I combine two volumes of a series of books, say an encyclopedia, I do not lose any information but I have less chromosomes.   If for some reason I split the copy I have two where one was.

It is like copying errors in the bible, because certainly Jeebus couldnt have had two different lineages as recited in two different chapters of the new testament, copying error, or recitation error.

That also requires no act of god.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 2/20/2014 5:20:16 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 556
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/20/2014 6:39:33 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
First, I look around and see every living thing has a different number of chromosomes and don't seem capable of mating with those with a differing number of chromosomes, even those with the same number of chromosomes don't seem capable of mating. Like a Red Panda and a Starfish both have 36 and mating would seem impossible. So my first question is; how does Evolution account for this great variety in the number of chromosomes and their inability mate outside their "species"?

When chromosomes are examined in detail we find evidence of many splittings and mergings.

For instance humans have 23 pairs of chromosome whiles our nearest relatives the chimps have 24. The human chromosome 2 is quite clearly the ape chromosomes 2a and 2b fused end to end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

It seems entirely likely that the mutation occurred silently and got fixed in the population during the bottleneck. There are probably people with merged or split chromosomes right now and they don't know and won't ever know.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 2/20/2014 6:40:02 AM >

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 557
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/20/2014 9:27:10 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

First, I look around and see every living thing has a different number of chromosomes and don't seem capable of mating with those with a differing number of chromosomes, even those with the same number of chromosomes don't seem capable of mating. Like a Red Panda and a Starfish both have 36 and mating would seem impossible. So my first question is; how does Evolution account for this great variety in the number of chromosomes and their inability mate outside their "species"?

It is just plain silly and terribly misinformed to believe that Evolution requires cross species mating. Where did that notion come from? Did Noah allow giraffes to mate with hippopotami on the Ark? Not that I am aware. So, why would you presume such a fantasy for science?

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 558
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/20/2014 9:31:46 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

First, I look around and see every living thing has a different number of chromosomes and don't seem capable of mating with those with a differing number of chromosomes, even those with the same number of chromosomes don't seem capable of mating. Like a Red Panda and a Starfish both have 36 and mating would seem impossible. So my first question is; how does Evolution account for this great variety in the number of chromosomes and their inability mate outside their "species"?

It is just plain silly and terribly misinformed to believe that Evolution requires cross species mating. Where did that notion come from? Did Noah allow giraffes to mate with hippopotami on the Ark? Not that I am aware. So, why would you presume such a fantasy for science?

somehow jellyfish mated with a creationist?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 559
RE: Evolution/Creation debate - 2/20/2014 11:09:22 AM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline 		And another strawman of what a basically biologically illiterate person constructs as to what evolution might be. If one really doesn't understand the cellular processes of Any form of reproduction of life, they should be reading, not posting.
Remarkable small errors in 'coding' a new life results in failure to thrive (Stillbirth in most cases of placental life or failure to even germinate.), mixing genes from now independent lines is worse than trying to boot a Windows operating system in a pre-Intel Mac. Nothing happens.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 560
Page:   <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Evolution/Creation debate Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109