Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 11:36 AM)anatevka Wrote:  I see another person has given me negative rep points. Hilarious how you guys can't handle a dissenting opinion here.

Actually it is the manner in which you are conducting yourself. We do not mind disagreement, bring some facts to back up your point and don't be a jerk. It is really not much to ask.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like wazzel's post
03-12-2014, 03:17 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Universal common decent appears to be the most likely explanation of evolution. Here is a long paper on the subject and an excerpt.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Quote:The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; AAAS 2006; GSA 2009; NAS 2005; NCSE 2012; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as supporting scientific evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2014, 03:20 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
Evolution has been observed in the lab with short live cycle animals, particularly bacteria.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14...H9-SGd0xdM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes wazzel's post
03-12-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 10:33 AM)anatevka Wrote:  
(02-12-2014 07:14 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Jesus is really happy with your witness I'm sure, being condescending is what Jesus loves most!

Now, if the Earth is billions of years old, then Adam and Eve didn't really happen in accordance with the bible. Also since you believe the bible is actually an accurate record of creation, could you explain the firmament to me?
And while you're at it, could you show me the talking serpents that can hold an intelligent conversation with humans?

Also, oh wise creationist that makes it up as you go along. Could you explain why the pyramids, which were built at least 200 years before the flood are still standing and have no evidence of flood damage?

Also I would like you to explain why there are trees thousands of years old that were here before the flood and they are still standing which would be impossible with a world-wide flood.

Bonus question, how did Noah steer the ark? There wasn't anything in the bible about a rudder on it.

"If Earth is billions of years old, then Adam and Eve didn't happen according to Bible" --> Bzzzzt. Wrong. Nice try, care to try again?

Why do you assume a world-wide flood? You do realize that the Hebrew word
Erets which is translated "Earth" in Genesis is also translated "land?" (as in local land in the area?) You do realize that ancient Hebrew only had about 5,000 words?

Any more questions?

Can't help but wonder why god said he'd drown all of the living things he created if it was only a localised flood.

Also, how a localised flood could be taller than the mountains in an open region is an interesting question in physics...

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
03-12-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 12:13 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(03-12-2014 11:21 AM)anatevka Wrote:  You dodged my questions back at you. You said that if the Earth is old, then
the Bible is untrue with regards to Adam and Eve. I said Bzzzt false - I'm waiting for your enlightenment, but I'm not holding my breath, as it's typical for ignorant
atheists to assume that all creationists (and the Bible itself) espouses a young earth. Fact is, YEC is a modern phenomenon. Do your homework.

Thank you, I'm sure Jesus is really happy about your insulting nature, you make him proud.

So when the bible states that god created certain things on certain days you don't believe these are literal days? Could you specify the nature of your made up creation myth so we can at least have a starting point for discussion.

Or are you really here to insult people and portray your bigotry in Jesus' name?

Clue for you: The Hebrew word translated "day" in Genesis is Yom. It is also translated "age" or "era". See how simple that was?

Do your homework.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2014, 03:38 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 03:10 PM)wazzel Wrote:  
(03-12-2014 11:36 AM)anatevka Wrote:  I see another person has given me negative rep points. Hilarious how you guys can't handle a dissenting opinion here.

Actually it is the manner in which you are conducting yourself. We do not mind disagreement, bring some facts to back up your point and don't be a jerk. It is really not much to ask.

So, did you call the person a jerk who called creationists "creatards?" Or did
you get your panties in a wad when my posts were called garbage?

I only am responding in the same way that I am being treated. I am respectful
to those that are respectful to me.

My behavior is a mirror.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 03:38 PM)anatevka Wrote:  
(03-12-2014 03:10 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Actually it is the manner in which you are conducting yourself. We do not mind disagreement, bring some facts to back up your point and don't be a jerk. It is really not much to ask.

So, did you call the person a jerk who called creationists "creatards?" Or did
you get your panties in a wad when my posts were called garbage?

I only am responding in the same way that I am being treated. I am respectful
to those that are respectful to me.

My behavior is a mirror.

I might and have in the past. My panties are unwadded. You are the one with knotted undies.

You did not start out respectful, why should you be respected?

You might want to give that last line some though. Often ones behavior is mirrored back to them. Try being nice and see how quickly it comes back around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes wazzel's post
03-12-2014, 03:47 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 03:38 PM)anatevka Wrote:  So, did you call the person a jerk who called creationists "creatards?" Or did
you get your panties in a wad when my posts were called garbage?

I only am responding in the same way that I am being treated. I am respectful
to those that are respectful to me.

My behavior is a mirror.

Ri-ight. So when you referred unflatteringly to everybody here and the "unthinking atheist circle-jerk" in your very first post that was in response to what?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
03-12-2014, 03:51 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(01-12-2014 06:54 PM)anatevka Wrote:  How predictable. Two pages of blather, and 0 debunking.

Lots of logical fallacies though, shall I list them?

Might as well rename this forum, the unthinking atheist circle-jerk.

Your first post in this thread. Not very nice nor in response to some one treating you poorly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2014, 03:53 PM
RE: Help to debunk Evolution's Achilles Heels.
(03-12-2014 03:35 PM)anatevka Wrote:  Clue for you: The Hebrew word translated "day" in Genesis is Yom. It is also translated "age" or "era". See how simple that was? .

Yep, and the evening and the morning were the first era. Makes perfect sense.

Even accepting that it isn't a literal day, the order of events is contradictory between genesis 1 & 2 and neither matches what scientific investigation tells us happened.

And you still haven't defined what you believe or why. I'm beginning to think you don't know what you actually believe.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: