God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2013, 05:24 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(15-02-2013 05:16 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Evolution is what you wish it to be, a magic sky fairy to go poof and "create". Oops, I said it...
Really? [Image: facepalm.gif]

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vosur's post
15-02-2013, 05:59 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(15-02-2013 05:16 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Evolution is what you wish it to be, a magic sky fairy to go poof and "create". Oops, I said it...

Congratulations, you just described Creationism and the process by all the Abrahamic gods created man.

However, you are awarded no points because you failed to describe evolution.


And it seems like you missed the difference between the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and Abiogenesis.


You fail at science, probably forever.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
15-02-2013, 06:24 PM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2013 06:29 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(15-02-2013 05:16 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Eggs survived on the land because of...some creatures evolved harder shells, some evolved the ability to carry eggs to term in their bodies...
What tells you that their eggs evolved harder shells and/or that they could carry to term in their bodies and give a birth out of water at the same time they moved onto the land.
Why not compare Evolution to an astronaut who evolves the ability to travel to the moon at the same time as he develops a spacesuit at the same time he develops temperature control at the same time he... remember, not NASA, mutations, selection, adaptation, etc.
Evolution is what you wish it to be, a magic sky fairy to go poof and "create". Oops, I said it...





That is a fallacy because you are adding an intent to the creature, or goal for it to attain.

Rather mutations, and other variances in DNA causes differences in an animal. Over time in populations the differences can become so pronounced that it no longer resembles the parent species.

Now on to this transition from land to water idea. Currently it's thought that shallow swamp land, and the predator/prey evolutionary arms race lead to the development of more robust fins to navigate through shallow waters filled with vegetation. Some of these shallows would dry up, and refill with water. Because of this, variation in the species caused an adaptation to this environmental change, leading up to the tetrapods.




Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
15-02-2013, 06:42 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(15-02-2013 05:16 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Eggs survived on the land because of...some creatures evolved harder shells, some evolved the ability to carry eggs to term in their bodies...
What tells you that their eggs evolved harder shells and/or that they could carry to term in their bodies and give a birth out of water at the same time they moved onto the land.
Why not compare Evolution to an astronaut who evolves the ability to travel to the moon at the same time as he develops a spacesuit at the same time he develops temperature control at the same time he... remember, not NASA, mutations, selection, adaptation, etc.
Evolution is what you wish it to be, a magic sky fairy to go poof and "create". Oops, I said it...


Evolution takes time, there would be no "spacesuit" or "developments in temperature control"..at the start of the attempts to get on land, many generations of species attempting to get on land would have died. Until species evolved away to survive on that environment. Same with the egg shell, many of generations of species that laid eggs on land probably died. A lot of species probably went extinct trying to achieve away to survive. Until, with enough successful mutations occurred to form harder and harder shells.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMFront's post
16-02-2013, 03:47 AM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2013 09:21 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(15-02-2013 11:31 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Occam's Razor - The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

I think YOU don't understand burden of proof, explanatory power, and simplest.
I think some of you shouldn't be teachers, or lawyers, or doctors, or any profession that requires dealing with obstinate people.


Seriously? You're cherry picking from Wikipedia? Using that site is fine within reason, but don't forget to cite your source. Also if you're going to post a definition of Occam's Razor, post the whole fucking thing you disingenuous turd.


"The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's razor: shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[emphasis added]


Maybe if you'd had a teacher that actually gave a damn and hadn't let you slide through high school English, you'd already know these things. Then again maybe your teachers were as fed up with your ignorance as I am.




(15-02-2013 11:31 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You are an exemplar of the lazy kind of Atheist even other Atheists despise, and thank God, Vosur and The Bearded Dude are nothing like you. Don't help the homeless like I do, or work with the retarded or elderly as I have, and don't--God forbid--be a Christian since you have no patience for anyone who shows the slightest bit of neediness or obstinacy. God forbid I should actually dare to ask you questions or quote the Bible to you. You're intellectually lazy IMHO.


That fact that you claim to help the homeless and elderly, with the implied taunt that I do not, does NOTHING to validate the strength of your argument. Arguments aren't won with character, they're won with evidence and logic. That you would attempt to employ this feeble staw-man against me only mirrors your own shallow ethics. So ultimately you are lacking not only in logic, reason, and evidence; but this shows that your own character leaves much to be desired.

You also have no grounds to attempt to even accuse anybody else on these threads of intellectual laziness. How many times have you been refuted with facts, evidence, links to relevant articles and videos? Only to come back swinging away with the same feeble and flawed arguments? You have shown repeatedly that you absolutely refuse to read anything presented to you beyond just skimming the posts on the forum. I've yet to see you take a criticism and read it, then actually try to cope with the new information. You haven't, and you probably wont, because you don't want to. Actually sit down a READ a fucking book on evolution, something designed for a layman introduction (because you quite clearly are not ready to handle higher concepts) , and you will find that most of your infantile questions will evaporate with your expanding knowledge. But you won't, I imagine you enjoy hiding in your intellectual cave.



(15-02-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  "Scientists who do not know how this evolved" yielded about 285 Million results on Google. You can just start with punctuated equilibrium and its kin, which is gobbledy-gook for "How did all those forms get into the fossil record so quickly and without any transitory forms appearing? We don't know!"

If you like, let's play a game. I'll start. I'll ask what, and you'll tell me the answer, since I don't know. Watch as the fun ensues.

What did the first animal to live on the land eat? What other animal did it mate with to produce progeny to continue to live on the land? For a special skeptic's double bonus, then tell me how your theory has been tested, since "all in evolution is tested and not theory."

ROFL.

PS. "You schmuck, you don't understand evolution!" is not an answer to my questions.


In this case, "You schmuck, you don't understand evolution!" is the PERFECT answer to your question. Answering these questions for you would be like telling a child what the square root of 64 is, before the child has a firm grasp on the concept of ZERO. You don't learn calculus before geometry and algebra for a reason. You need to stop posting, go get a book on evolution written by a reputable evolutionary biologist (no, AnswersInGenesis.com does NOT count), and actually learn. You need to wash out all of that creationist propaganda bullshit that's been caked inside your brain. Then you can start with the simple building block concepts, like natural selection, without your knee-jerk misinterpretation kicking in.


Regadless, thank you PleaseJesus, in the last 3 pages you've done nothing but reinforce everything I said about you. Way to go. Your level of religious indoctrination and purposeful ignorance is truly astounding.

[Image: 23508317.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
16-02-2013, 08:35 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(16-02-2013 03:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You'r level of religious indoctrination and purposeful ignorance is truly astounding.
*Your

Grammar Nazi'd! Smile

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
16-02-2013, 09:17 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(16-02-2013 08:35 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(16-02-2013 03:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You'r level of religious indoctrination and purposeful ignorance is truly astounding.
*Your

Grammar Nazi'd! Smile


I fixed it, ya smarmy bastard... Tongue

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
PleaseJesus, I recommend you read The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins. It's written for children so you should be able to handle it intellectually, and includes a section on evolution. It would probably help you greatly, if you are actually open to learning something as you claim to be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes hedgehog648's post
16-02-2013, 03:47 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Incidentally does anyone think we should be submitting some of these questions to potholer54's QQOQQ award?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2013, 03:54 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(16-02-2013 03:47 PM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  Incidentally does anyone think we should be submitting some of these questions to potholer54's QQOQQ award?


I think it would have to be a video...

Get a video of him asking, and you've got a nomination.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: