Best Comebacks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-12-2011, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 30-12-2011 05:18 PM by davidbehrns.)
RE: Best Comebacks
Year 0 Adam and Eve, world population 2
Year 1056 Noah and family are only survivors of flood, world population 8
Year 6000 (today according to a creationist), world population almost 7 Billion
That is a LOT of babies! Why are christians so uptight about fornication? It seems that their version of history requires copious amounts of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like davidbehrns's post
30-12-2011, 05:05 PM
RE: Best Comebacks
It's been used before, but this pic is still one of my favorites to demonstrate macroevolution through microevolution. You would have to be having an online argument to use it though.


[Image: macroevolution.jpg]

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Buddy Christ's post
30-12-2011, 05:49 PM
RE: Best Comebacks
(30-12-2011 05:05 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  It's been used before, but this pic is still one of my favorites to demonstrate macroevolution through microevolution. You would have to be having an online argument to use it though.

This is great! Thanks for putting this up! Smile

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2011, 06:01 PM
RE: Best Comebacks
(30-12-2011 10:52 AM)free2011 Wrote:  
(30-12-2011 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-12-2011 08:50 AM)free2011 Wrote:  My understanding is that "microevolution" is changes on a small level within a species while "macroevolution" is larger changes between species. Right?

If that is the case then both are correct as the major changes are culminations of very small changes within species. Dawkins explains this very well in his book "The Magic of Reality". Where generations of a small time period can reproduce with one another but take that further out and they can't. For instance generation 10 can reproduce with generation 20, and 20 with 30 and 30 with 40 . . . but generation 100 can't reproduce with generation 10.

If this is all correct then say "I'm glad you agree with me."

Your understanding is not quite accurate. There is no micro- or macro-evolution; there is just evolution. The creationist/ID differentiation is founded on the Biblical, non-scientific concept of "kinds".

Thats what I was trying to say. That they essentially believe the same thing. So are you saying micro is not a physical change? How does the bible describe micro? Thank you for the education

What an odd question. The Bible says nothing about evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2011, 06:09 PM
RE: Best Comebacks
(30-12-2011 06:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-12-2011 10:52 AM)free2011 Wrote:  
(30-12-2011 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-12-2011 08:50 AM)free2011 Wrote:  My understanding is that "microevolution" is changes on a small level within a species while "macroevolution" is larger changes between species. Right?

If that is the case then both are correct as the major changes are culminations of very small changes within species. Dawkins explains this very well in his book "The Magic of Reality". Where generations of a small time period can reproduce with one another but take that further out and they can't. For instance generation 10 can reproduce with generation 20, and 20 with 30 and 30 with 40 . . . but generation 100 can't reproduce with generation 10.

If this is all correct then say "I'm glad you agree with me."

Your understanding is not quite accurate. There is no micro- or macro-evolution; there is just evolution. The creationist/ID differentiation is founded on the Biblical, non-scientific concept of "kinds".

Thats what I was trying to say. That they essentially believe the same thing. So are you saying micro is not a physical change? How does the bible describe micro? Thank you for the education

What an odd question. The Bible says nothing about evolution.

Precisely. How can a Christian believe in both creation and evolution, macro or micro?

.
I wasn't . . . until I was
I am . . . until I'm not
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2011, 06:20 PM
RE: Best Comebacks
(30-12-2011 06:09 PM)free2011 Wrote:  
(30-12-2011 06:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-12-2011 10:52 AM)free2011 Wrote:  
(30-12-2011 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-12-2011 08:50 AM)free2011 Wrote:  My understanding is that "microevolution" is changes on a small level within a species while "macroevolution" is larger changes between species. Right?

If that is the case then both are correct as the major changes are culminations of very small changes within species. Dawkins explains this very well in his book "The Magic of Reality". Where generations of a small time period can reproduce with one another but take that further out and they can't. For instance generation 10 can reproduce with generation 20, and 20 with 30 and 30 with 40 . . . but generation 100 can't reproduce with generation 10.

If this is all correct then say "I'm glad you agree with me."

Your understanding is not quite accurate. There is no micro- or macro-evolution; there is just evolution. The creationist/ID differentiation is founded on the Biblical, non-scientific concept of "kinds".

Thats what I was trying to say. That they essentially believe the same thing. So are you saying micro is not a physical change? How does the bible describe micro? Thank you for the education

What an odd question. The Bible says nothing about evolution.

Precisely. How can a Christian believe in both creation and evolution, macro or micro?

ECs or TEs... and I guess probably PCs as well... but I suppose that's kind of cheating.

So, yeah. You cannot be a YEC or an OEC and believe in any type of evolution. If you do, you believe in a non-existent type of evolution and don't understand science.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2011, 11:57 PM
RE: Best Comebacks
I like two analogies to show how minimal changes add to huge changes. The ticking of a minute hand compared to the hour hand is one, as you know the minute change also culminates in an hourly change that you can't observe but still happens.

The better analogy is the change that a baby undergoes to become an adult. There are people who are a baby at one point and an adult at one point, and in between you can categorize them as a baby or adult but clearly they're not 100% of either. At any point you can call a person a "baby" or "adult" or even give them a different title if it helps clarify ("teen", for instance) but the billions of tiny changes that a person goes through in their life accumulate to bring them from one type of person to another. And we can observe that change through fossils. If you wanted to know if an adult was once one particular baby, you could take pictures every year (the analogous fossil) and, even though there would be "gaps" (even if you took pictures every minute), you can still see enough resemblance to figure out what baby that particular adult once was. Or you could take a shortcut and compare the adult's DNA to the baby's DNA, which isn't an analogy to anything but itself - evolutionists do that too, and they use the exact same method.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2012, 06:27 AM
RE: Best Comebacks
When posed with a ridiculous pseudo-scientific question/response, like "Evolution is just a theory." I like to say "Stop letting your religion teach you science. It makes you sound foolish in front people who actually know what they're talking about."

You cannot have a logical debate when the other person did not arrive at their point of view using logic.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Zacktacular's post
24-01-2012, 10:36 AM
RE: Best Comebacks
(30-12-2011 04:50 PM)davidbehrns Wrote:  Year 0 Adam and Eve, world population 2
Year 1056 Noah and family are only survivors of flood, world population 8
Year 6000 (today according to a creationist), world population almost 7 Billion
That is a LOT of babies! Why are christians so uptight about fornication? It seems that their version of history requires copious amounts of it.


I wonder.. what would the math look like? I mean let's assume for a moment... if we assume by creationists that the earth is 6000 years old. The world population is 8, assuming that a generation on average is 30 years between children, assuming every individual has 2 kids (assuming, for simple math).... what would be the total number from them till now over that period of time? That doesn't factor in the ratio of male to female.... the plague, world wars, disasters, etc etc...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2012, 06:41 PM
RE: Best Comebacks
(30-12-2011 08:19 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Ask them to define macroevolution. It is simply the culmination of microevolution, as in, many small changes amount to large change. I've never even met a person face to face that tries to use this argument. I think it takes an extraordinary kind of stupid, and there just can't be very many people in this world that can achieve that level.

I've met someone that dumb, my own bloody father!

He's a creationist because (you'll love this) 'evolution requires more faith than creationism'.

I've pointed out to him before that evolution is inevitable, even if things were created they would still evolve. I've also pointed out the various breeds of dogs around today as evidence of what can be achieved in a few thousand years by selective breeding. He accepts that but then replies with the totally ridiculous 'but all breeds of dog still eat meat and go woof'. Doesn't seem to have grasped that small changes amount to a big change eventually yet.

For a clever guy he isn't half retarded at times.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: