I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2015, 02:34 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 01:32 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 08:09 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Are you high right now? Wait...you don't know what the fossil record is do you?
I reject whatever it is.

I didn't even read past this, like I actually didn't. If your attitude to learning is to reject anything you don't like before you even know what it is or what it says then you have ZERO interest in making sure your views and beliefs comport with reality. You are by definition delusional. You are creating a wall of ignorance around your belief and you are more then welcome to do so, but I'll waste no more of my time on an uneducated person with no desire to become educated. And with your past remarks about the brain you are in desperate need of education.

Honestly what you have just said is repugnant, disgusting and shameful.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
26-02-2015, 03:34 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Hello again.

(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, contrary to what some of you may WANT to be true...

Consider

*Scratches head* Having trouble finding the right words to reply to this line. So... I never think along the line of 'What I want to be true'. It is interesting that the history of the past 150 years would seem to build on and hence demonstrate that the theory is both sound and has been useful. Or are you saying that the science is all... wrong?

Consider


(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  We currently don't know how life originated by natural processes.

*Nods* This is true. WE do not currently know how (As others previously have put it) chemistry became 'alive'. Though you have dodged the question of why 'life' at its most fundamental levels is some who 'special' from chemistry.



(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So, the proposition of "Life originated from non-life"...that proposition is either true, or false.

*Nods* It may be true... it may be false... as, again, others have pointed out, there may even be a third -as of yet- UN-thought of third option. However, given that you seem to automatically place a 'god' into this answer does not actually either answer the question, nor offer a good enough answer in itself.

(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If it is even POSSIBLE for it to be false, then evolution (without God) cannot be said to be true,

No, I do not see how this statement makes sense. Because one thing is not true does not make something different not true. You understand this, yes? Abiogenesis and evolution are different things.

Abiogenesis is "Chemistry becoming life."

While

Evolution is "The the gradual development/changing of something over time."

(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Because if the proposition "Life originated from non-life" is false, then evolution (without God) would NEVER take off, because it DEPENDS on preexisting life.

This is either just a repeat of your previous statement... Or a clarification of your previous statement. (Not sure which)

Which is not acknowledging that the two different things are independent of one another.

(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It is a prime example of the cart before the horse fallacy.

No. The above is now your assertion about things.

You say 'X' MUST come before 'Y'.

While I would say that 'X' might come before 'Y'. 'Y', however, is not dependent on 'X' to be true.


(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now if you want to believe that evolution occurred with divine intervention, fine...but then again, you can't be an atheist once you do that.

I do not want to or need to say such a thing. Evolution can occur quite happily now with out any god poking things, so it would be quite fare to say that evolution occurred then without any god poking things. It is not an 'All or nothing' position.


(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But it doesn't matter what the brain is made up of..

In a way, true. Though I would like to know what you think the brain is made up of. DO you see the difference?

(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am talking about the origin of consciousness....


And this has been answered as "An emergent property from an ever increasing amount of neural complexity."

(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...And nothing within the brain cannot be used to explain the origin of the mind, because mental states are distinct from physical states.

Okay, two problems with this sentence. I think you've thrown in a 'Double negative' into the speech pattern.

Also that the evidence of people/animals WITH damaged/altered physical brains have shown that the function changes with said damages, hence that form does equate to function.

(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That is where science run into problems...

Yes... this is why the people doing the science continue to ask the questions, testing ideas and seeking answers.

t
(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Science biggest problems come from any question regarding absolute origins..

No.. you keep asserting that these are big/huge/seemingly insurmountable problems. There's a difference.

(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...And the origin of the universe, life, and consciousness...

These are three rather different things. You would agree?


(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  There is a reason why these questions are so difficult to answer...because science only deals with shit after it got here,

This statement, which you have made before and has been shown to be in error, is... simply wrong. Science is about formulating ideas and then testing said ideas to see if said ideas,

1) Match what can be seen in the world around us,

And,

2) Make predictions about things we have yet to discover about the world around us.

(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...But isn't capable of telling us where did shit come from in the first place.

You keep repeating this assertion. So, you would say that the study of history, Geology, Astronomy (To name but two of the many fields within science) do not tell us about the past? That the system by which things are done is wrong and of no use?


Again, so as not to segway into something else of a discussion between us, would you explain what it is that you think is inside the head/cranium which is 'The brain'?

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
26-02-2015, 08:45 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Scratches head* Having trouble finding the right words to reply to this line. So... I never think along the line of 'What I want to be true'.

I said "some of you"...and if you are not included in that "some", then it doesn't apply to you.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  It is interesting that the history of the past 150 years would seem to build on and hence demonstrate that the theory is both sound and has been useful. Or are you saying that the science is all... wrong?

I am saying that there is no scientific evidence for evolution. Science is supposed to be based on observation, repeated experiments, and predictions.

Observation: No one has ever observed a reptile-bird type of transformation

Repeated experiment: No one has conducted an experiment that will allow for such a transformation.

Prediction: No one has ever successfully predicted when such an transformation will occur.

These are all facts...now, you can believe whatever the hell you want to believe (not you personally, but in general), but don't make it seem as if it is a brute fact that this kind of stuff happens...you've never seen it happen, you've only seen animals produce what it is, not what it isn't.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Nods* This is true. WE do not currently know how (As others previously have put it) chemistry became 'alive'. Though you have dodged the question of why 'life' at its most fundamental levels is some who 'special' from chemistry.

Please rephrase the last part of the quote.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Nods* It may be true... it may be false... as, again, others have pointed out, there may even be a third -as of yet- UN-thought of third option.

Well, tell me what is the third option and we will add that one to the mix as well. That is the problem, you guys have the "anything but God" attitude...no matter how absurd it may be, or how unlikely it may be, as long as the answer isn't God, you will go for it.

Taxi cab fallacy.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  However, given that you seem to automatically place a 'god' into this answer does not actually either answer the question, nor offer a good enough answer in itself.

It is called law of excluded middle...either God did it, or God didn't do it...if you know of any other options besides these two, then enlighten me. I have reasons to believe that God did it...the God hypothesis has more explanatory power than the other option, plus the other option can be proven to be logically absurd.

So it is based on these reasons why I believe that theism is true.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No, I do not see how this statement makes sense. Because one thing is not true does not make something different not true. You understand this, yes? Abiogenesis and evolution are different things.

Well, I gave my reasons why, and I thought you'd directly address the reasons that I gave instead of just flatly stating that it doesn't make sense. So let me explain it again...

First off, I am talking about evolution without divine intervention, ok? Now, in order for evolution to occur, life had to already be here, right? So, abiogenesis may in fact be false...as it may NOT be possible for life to come from nonlife. So, if abiogenesis is POSSIBLY false, then evolution is also POSSIBLY false, because if what evolution was dependent upon is possibly false, then evolution itself would have to be possibly false.

Abiogenesis can't be false, with evolution being true,...that is the point, because the latter is dependent upon the former. When you think about it, it is kind of like you, as a person...your existence is dependent upon external entities (your parents)...if the entities that you owe your existence to didn't exist, then you wouldn't exist, right? It is the same thing with abiogenesis/evolution...you are right, they are different things, but one depends on the other.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Abiogenesis is "Chemistry becoming life."

While

Evolution is "The the gradual development/changing of something over time."

Dude, look at the definitions you just gave...you don't see how evolution depends on abiogenesis? There can be no gradual change over time without there being life forms to change...you don't see that?? Huh


(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  This is either just a repeat of your previous statement... Or a clarification of your previous statement. (Not sure which)

Which is not acknowledging that the two different things are independent of one another.

Ok, well let me ask you this...if abiogenesis is false, could evolution still occur?? Just a simple yes or no would be fine.

(26-02-2015 01:47 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It is a prime example of the cart before the horse fallacy.

No. The above is now your assertion about things.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You say 'X' MUST come before 'Y'.

Which is equivalent to saying "Before life can change (evolution), it has to come in to existence first (abiogenesis)".

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  While I would say that 'X' might come before 'Y'. 'Y', however, is not dependent on 'X' to be true.

Please explain how evolution could occur if abiogenesis is false.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I do not want to or need to say such a thing. Evolution can occur quite happily now with out any god poking things

But it couldn't occur quite happily without abiogenesis poking things...but wait, you can't demonstrate abiogenesis...soooo, that would make any claims about the truth value of evolution irrelevant.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  , so it would be quite fare to say that evolution occurred then without any god poking things.

See, if you don't believe in God, then evolution is the only game in town...on your view, evolution MUST have had to occur, because you need to find some kind of naturalistic reason why we have life/species. So it is no wonder why virtually all unbelievers believe in evolution...it is all they have to go on.

The problem is, they accept it by faith. All you've ever seen is animals produce what they are, not what they aren't...and if you want to believe that long ago, before no one was around to witness it, animals began to produce offspring different than what they were, then fine, believe what you want...but it is intellectually dishonest to call it science, and it is intellectually dishonest to call it a fact.

You are relying on the unseen...which is what us religious folks call...FAITH.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  In a way, true. Though I would like to know what you think the brain is made up of. DO you see the difference?

Lets say the brain is made up of matter...now, whatever matter you'd like to call it is up to you...that isn't the point, the point is, where did consciousness come from??

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  And this has been answered as "An emergent property from an ever increasing amount of neural complexity."

That is the theory, but what I want is evidence for the theory. Because all I would have to do is ask how did it emerge, and wait on you to struggle to give an answer. In science, it isn't enough to just throw answers out there...you have to be able to test it...experiment...so, where did this emergent property come from, and why....I mean, it could have been just as easy to NOT have emerged, so what caused it to emerge??? Of course, first you would have to prove abiogenesis to be true as it relates to consciousness as well. I will wait.

Second, there are plenty bodies in the morgue that have brains, but no consciousness. So if the consciousness can be gone, and the brain can still be there, then the brain and the mind are obviously two different things.

Third, if you have scattered pieces of brain matter on a table, and you shaped and molded it into a perfect brain again, where would you get the consciousness? You have the brain, but where is the consciousness?? If you wanted the brain to think of a black cat, how would you place the thought of a black cat into the brain?? The thought of the black cat is not a physical entity, it is a mental entity...so how would you place this mental entity inside of the physical entity to get the two to correlate in a way at which the brain is thinking about the cat??

Fourth, if we are nothing but complex chunks of matter with neurons running through our brains, then we don't have free will. When a person commits a crime, the person is only acting according to the formation of neurons in his brain. The neurons are operating based on natural law, so when the neurons is formulated in a way to make a person want to commit a crime, and the person refuses to commit the crime, then that person is violating natural law, but wait a minute...how can a person naturally violate natural laws?

Fifth, if there is a man that is wanted for murder and he is on the FBI's Most Wanted list...and one day, you woke up, looked in the mirror, and you found yourself inside of this man's body, and right when you were trying to figure out what is going on...the FBI bust through your door and arrest you...and they say, "Sir, you are under arrest for first degree murder"....are you a murderer? You are inside of the man's body, but "YOU" didn't commit the crime, did you?

"YOU" are more than just a body..."you" are a soul...your mind is independent from your body.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay, two problems with this sentence. I think you've thrown in a 'Double negative' into the speech pattern.

Go right ahead, continue to make accusations without explaining shit Thumbsup

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Also that the evidence of people/animals WITH damaged/altered physical brains have shown that the function changes with said damages, hence that form does equate to function.

Point?

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Yes... this is why the people doing the science continue to ask the questions, testing ideas and seeking answers.

That's fine.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No.. you keep asserting that these are big/huge/seemingly insurmountable problems. There's a difference.

Yet, I don't have a answer to the questions as of yet Laugh out load

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  These are three rather different things. You would agree?

I agree.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  This statement, which you have made before and has been shown to be in error, is... simply wrong. Science is about formulating ideas and then testing said ideas to see if said ideas,

I said that science deals with shit only after it has gotten here?? Please explain how the statement is wrong or is this just another example of you making baseless assertions.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  2) Make predictions about things we have yet to discover about the world around us.

Please make a prediction regarding the next time we will see a reptile-bird kind of transformation. You just said that science makes predictions, well, make this one.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  ]
You keep repeating this assertion. So, you would say that the study of history, Geology, Astronomy (To name but two of the many fields within science) do not tell us about the past? That the system by which things are done is wrong and of no use?

They tell us about the past, but each claim is to be taken on a case by case basis, and it just so happens that in this particular case, I think science has it wrong.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Again, so as not to segway into something else of a discussion between us, would you explain what it is that you think is inside the head/cranium which is 'The brain'?

The brain is made up of matter...again, whatever you want to call this matter is fine...doesn't really matter because my point stands...when I think of a black cat, there isn't a black cat inside my brain making me thinking it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 08:48 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Scratches head* Having trouble finding the right words to reply to this line. So... I never think along the line of 'What I want to be true'.

I said "some of you"...and if you are not included in that "some", then it doesn't apply to you.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  It is interesting that the history of the past 150 years would seem to build on and hence demonstrate that the theory is both sound and has been useful. Or are you saying that the science is all... wrong?

I am saying that there is no scientific evidence for evolution. Science is supposed to be based on observation, repeated experiments, and predictions.

Observation: No one has ever observed a reptile-bird type of transformation

Repeated experiment: No one has conducted an experiment that will allow for such a transformation.

Prediction: No one has ever successfully predicted when such an transformation will occur.

These are all facts...now, you can believe whatever the hell you want to believe (not you personally, but in general), but don't make it seem as if it is a brute fact that this kind of stuff happens...you've never seen it happen, you've only seen animals produce what it is, not what it isn't.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Nods* This is true. WE do not currently know how (As others previously have put it) chemistry became 'alive'. Though you have dodged the question of why 'life' at its most fundamental levels is some who 'special' from chemistry.

Please rephrase the last part of the quote.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Nods* It may be true... it may be false... as, again, others have pointed out, there may even be a third -as of yet- UN-thought of third option.

Well, tell me what is the third option and we will add that one to the mix as well. That is the problem, you guys have the "anything but God" attitude...no matter how absurd it may be, or how unlikely it may be, as long as the answer isn't God, you will go for it.

Taxi cab fallacy.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  However, given that you seem to automatically place a 'god' into this answer does not actually either answer the question, nor offer a good enough answer in itself.

It is called law of excluded middle...either God did it, or God didn't do it...if you know of any other options besides these two, then enlighten me. I have reasons to believe that God did it...the God hypothesis has more explanatory power than the other option, plus the other option can be proven to be logically absurd.

So it is based on these reasons why I believe that theism is true.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No, I do not see how this statement makes sense. Because one thing is not true does not make something different not true. You understand this, yes? Abiogenesis and evolution are different things.

Well, I gave my reasons why, and I thought you'd directly address the reasons that I gave instead of just flatly stating that it doesn't make sense. So let me explain it again...

First off, I am talking about evolution without divine intervention, ok? Now, in order for evolution to occur, life had to already be here, right? So, abiogenesis may in fact be false...as it may NOT be possible for life to come from nonlife. So, if abiogenesis is POSSIBLY false, then evolution is also POSSIBLY false, because if what evolution was dependent upon is possibly false, then evolution itself would have to be possibly false.

Abiogenesis can't be false, with evolution being true,...that is the point, because the latter is dependent upon the former. When you think about it, it is kind of like you, as a person...your existence is dependent upon external entities (your parents)...if the entities that you owe your existence to didn't exist, then you wouldn't exist, right? It is the same thing with abiogenesis/evolution...you are right, they are different things, but one depends on the other.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Abiogenesis is "Chemistry becoming life."

While

Evolution is "The the gradual development/changing of something over time."

Dude, look at the definitions you just gave...you don't see how evolution depends on abiogenesis? There can be no gradual change over time without there being life forms to change...you don't see that?? Huh


(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  This is either just a repeat of your previous statement... Or a clarification of your previous statement. (Not sure which)

Which is not acknowledging that the two different things are independent of one another.

Ok, well let me ask you this...if abiogenesis is false, could evolution still occur?? Just a simple yes or no would be fine.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You say 'X' MUST come before 'Y'.

Which is equivalent to saying "Before life can change (evolution), it has to come in to existence first (abiogenesis)".

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  While I would say that 'X' might come before 'Y'. 'Y', however, is not dependent on 'X' to be true.

Please explain how evolution could occur if abiogenesis is false.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I do not want to or need to say such a thing. Evolution can occur quite happily now with out any god poking things

But it couldn't occur quite happily without abiogenesis poking things...but wait, you can't demonstrate abiogenesis...soooo, that would make any claims about the truth value of evolution irrelevant.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  , so it would be quite fare to say that evolution occurred then without any god poking things.

See, if you don't believe in God, then evolution is the only game in town...on your view, evolution MUST have had to occur, because you need to find some kind of naturalistic reason why we have life/species. So it is no wonder why virtually all unbelievers believe in evolution...it is all they have to go on.

The problem is, they accept it by faith. All you've ever seen is animals produce what they are, not what they aren't...and if you want to believe that long ago, before no one was around to witness it, animals began to produce offspring different than what they were, then fine, believe what you want...but it is intellectually dishonest to call it science, and it is intellectually dishonest to call it a fact.

You are relying on the unseen...which is what us religious folks call...FAITH.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  In a way, true. Though I would like to know what you think the brain is made up of. DO you see the difference?

Lets say the brain is made up of matter...now, whatever matter you'd like to call it is up to you...that isn't the point, the point is, where did consciousness come from??

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  And this has been answered as "An emergent property from an ever increasing amount of neural complexity."

That is the theory, but what I want is evidence for the theory. Because all I would have to do is ask how did it emerge, and wait on you to struggle to give an answer. In science, it isn't enough to just throw answers out there...you have to be able to test it...experiment...so, where did this emergent property come from, and why....I mean, it could have been just as easy to NOT have emerged, so what caused it to emerge??? Of course, first you would have to prove abiogenesis to be true as it relates to consciousness as well. I will wait.

Second, there are plenty bodies in the morgue that have brains, but no consciousness. So if the consciousness can be gone, and the brain can still be there, then the brain and the mind are obviously two different things.

Third, if you have scattered pieces of brain matter on a table, and you shaped and molded it into a perfect brain again, where would you get the consciousness? You have the brain, but where is the consciousness?? If you wanted the brain to think of a black cat, how would you place the thought of a black cat into the brain?? The thought of the black cat is not a physical entity, it is a mental entity...so how would you place this mental entity inside of the physical entity to get the two to correlate in a way at which the brain is thinking about the cat??

Fourth, if we are nothing but complex chunks of matter with neurons running through our brains, then we don't have free will. When a person commits a crime, the person is only acting according to the formation of neurons in his brain. The neurons are operating based on natural law, so when the neurons is formulated in a way to make a person want to commit a crime, and the person refuses to commit the crime, then that person is violating natural law, but wait a minute...how can a person naturally violate natural laws?

Fifth, if there is a man that is wanted for murder and he is on the FBI's Most Wanted list...and one day, you woke up, looked in the mirror, and you found yourself inside of this man's body, and right when you were trying to figure out what is going on...the FBI bust through your door and arrest you...and they say, "Sir, you are under arrest for first degree murder"....are you a murderer? You are inside of the man's body, but "YOU" didn't commit the crime, did you?

"YOU" are more than just a body..."you" are a soul...your mind is independent from your body.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay, two problems with this sentence. I think you've thrown in a 'Double negative' into the speech pattern.

Go right ahead, continue to make accusations without explaining shit Thumbsup

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Also that the evidence of people/animals WITH damaged/altered physical brains have shown that the function changes with said damages, hence that form does equate to function.

Point?

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Yes... this is why the people doing the science continue to ask the questions, testing ideas and seeking answers.

That's fine.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No.. you keep asserting that these are big/huge/seemingly insurmountable problems. There's a difference.

Yet, I don't have a answer to the questions as of yet Laugh out load

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  These are three rather different things. You would agree?

I agree.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  This statement, which you have made before and has been shown to be in error, is... simply wrong. Science is about formulating ideas and then testing said ideas to see if said ideas,

I said that science deals with shit only after it has gotten here?? Please explain how the statement is wrong or is this just another example of you making baseless assertions.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  2) Make predictions about things we have yet to discover about the world around us.

Please make a prediction regarding the next time we will see a reptile-bird kind of transformation. You just said that science makes predictions, well, make this one.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You keep repeating this assertion. So, you would say that the study of history, Geology, Astronomy (To name but two of the many fields within science) do not tell us about the past? That the system by which things are done is wrong and of no use?

They tell us about the past, but each claim is to be taken on a case by case basis, and it just so happens that in this particular case, I think science has it wrong.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Again, so as not to segway into something else of a discussion between us, would you explain what it is that you think is inside the head/cranium which is 'The brain'?

The brain is made up of matter...again, whatever you want to call this matter is fine...doesn't really matter because my point stands...when I think of a black cat, there isn't a black cat inside my brain making me thinking it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 08:54 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Black cats don't exist. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
26-02-2015, 09:12 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 08:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It is called law of excluded middle...either God did it, or God didn't do it...if you know of any other options besides these two, then enlighten me.

Here you go. Instead of a proposition either being true or false, a proposition is either true or not able to be proven true. ... Not that I expect you to be able to appreciate this distinction.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
26-02-2015, 09:23 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2015 09:28 PM by Chas.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 08:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  First off, I am talking about evolution without divine intervention, ok? Now, in order for evolution to occur, life had to already be here, right? So, abiogenesis may in fact be false...as it may NOT be possible for life to come from nonlife. So, if abiogenesis is POSSIBLY false, then evolution is also POSSIBLY false, because if what evolution was dependent upon is possibly false, then evolution itself would have to be possibly false.

Abiogenesis can't be false, with evolution being true,...that is the point, because the latter is dependent upon the former. When you think about it, it is kind of like you, as a person...your existence is dependent upon external entities (your parents)...if the entities that you owe your existence to didn't exist, then you wouldn't exist, right? It is the same thing with abiogenesis/evolution...you are right, they are different things, but one depends on the other.

You are quite wrong. Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, only on life existing. Life could have been created.

All that is required for evolution is imperfect replication and differential reproductive success.

Quote:Dude, look at the definitions you just gave...you don't see how evolution depends on abiogenesis? There can be no gradual change over time without there being life forms to change...you don't see that?? Huh

Because it is not true.

Quote:Ok, well let me ask you this...if abiogenesis is false, could evolution still occur?? Just a simple yes or no would be fine.

Yes. See above.

Quote:
(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You say 'X' MUST come before 'Y'.

Which is equivalent to saying "Before life can change (evolution), it has to come in to existence first (abiogenesis)".

No, it only had to exist. See above.

Quote:Please explain how evolution could occur if abiogenesis is false.

See above.

Quote:But it couldn't occur quite happily without abiogenesis poking things...but wait, you can't demonstrate abiogenesis...soooo, that would make any claims about the truth value of evolution irrelevant.

See above.

Quote:See, if you don't believe in God, then evolution is the only game in town...on your view, evolution MUST have had to occur, because you need to find some kind of naturalistic reason why we have life/species. So it is no wonder why virtually all unbelievers believe in evolution...it is all they have to go on.

God only had to create one organism. Evolution follows from imperfect replication.

Quote:The problem is, they accept it by faith. All you've ever seen is animals produce what they are, not what they aren't...and if you want to believe that long ago, before no one was around to witness it, animals began to produce offspring different than what they were, then fine, believe what you want...but it is intellectually dishonest to call it science, and it is intellectually dishonest to call it a fact.

Animals and plants and viruses do, in fact, create offspring that are different from themselves. The differences are typically tiny. But over generations, the differences add up. It is inevitable.

And we have witnessed speciation, e.g. cichlids in Lake Malawi and other rift lakes.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-02-2015, 09:29 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
I won't argue. I hold that you are too stupid to argue with successfully. But I will mock. It's more fun. And I get to look at cute kittens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like natachan's post
26-02-2015, 09:35 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 09:29 PM)natachan Wrote:  I won't argue. I hold that you are too stupid to argue with successfully. But I will mock. It's more fun. And I get to look at cute kittens.

[Image: kitten.jpg]


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
26-02-2015, 09:36 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
After two finals today, that's a sight for sore eyes. Little jelly bean toes and fluffy white tummy...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: