I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2015, 12:15 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 10:19 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 10:18 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I don't think he is thick at all, I think he is well aware he is wrong and exactly how he is wrong. Look how he responds to the question asked of him by Girlyman by.... ...not answering it at all. He does not even try, because he knows he can't. He diverts the question with one of his own, and then runs away from the question that was asked of him with zero effort put int o answer it, or even pretend like he can.

Diverts and runs? Someone crack a window. Drinking Beverage

Is he ignorant? Sure, absolutely. Does he lie? All the damn time. Is he unaware how terrible he is at this? No not at all, I don't buy his feigned "I'm the best no one can touch me" act at all. A man who actually believes he has real answers does not need to say shit like this:
He knows exactly how stupid and uninformed he is but he enjoys jerking our chain. He's just here to disrupt.

Anti got banned for shit exactly like that.

Whiskey, I normally agree with you but in this instance I really think you have over estimated chucklefuck's intellect.

Oh don't get me wrong he is absolutely an idiot. I'd not be surprised to find out he joined the military (if he even did) as a response to dropping out of high school cause all the signs of a chronic educational failure are there. All I'm saying is that's not why he repeats the things he says.

Look at the cartilage thing. We all know he said it, we all know he said the brain was made of cartilage and sure he might have said that cause he's that fucking stupid. Could be. But the fact he repeatedly tries to pretend like he didn't say that, even when people are quoting him saying that and not "matter", well now that has nothing to do with stupidity. That's just strait up deliberately assholeish behavior.

I wouldn't trust the fucking idiot not to harm himself with a potato but that don't mean he ain't also trying to be a disruptive asshole intentionally. Ignorance can explain why he don't know so many damn basic things but the fact he repeats it without even considering or investigating what we say is just being a cocksucker, plain and simple.
Being too stupid to learn don't exclude one from being too much of an asshole to even try is all I'm sayin'.

Kneel mortal before Whiskey I, Lord of Dalmore, Duke of Jameson, Defender of the Sloshed, and God-Emperor of Holy Terra.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
27-02-2015, 12:28 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 10:47 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Show me a reptile-bird transformation and I will have God here in a half hour Thumbsup

There's Velociraptor Mongoliensis, which has bird and crocodilian features.

Your turn Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Helio's post
27-02-2015, 12:33 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 10:47 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 10:11 PM)pablo Wrote:  Wow that was easy!
Do god next.

Show me a reptile-bird transformation and I will have God here in a half hour Thumbsup

You don't need to produce a picture, sufficient evidence will be fine.
The point is, if something really exists, it should be easy to prove it exists. See ya in half an hour.

[Image: animals-morphed-28_zpsa137a107.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
27-02-2015, 12:43 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Double post
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 06:18 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Except... well the research and subsequent discovery of something like DNA seems to support the idea of evolution pretty well.

How the hell does DNA support theory of evolution?

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I do believe you've been told before that you don't get 'Croc-o-ducks' happening.

What the hell do you call archaeopteryx? Laugh out load

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... now here's an interesting thing.
You make a prediction that 'No one can show a species changing into t different species (I'll ignore the whole 'Kind' thing for the moment as some one else is asking you about that definition)

Well I will put it to you this way, if you know the distinction between a dog and a turtle, then you know what a different "kind" means in this context...whatever word you'd like to use as a biological term for "kind", use it, but it doesn't change shit Cool

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  and YET you are happy to ignore demonstrable 'Ring species' as quite literally, one species can be seen changing through breeding gradients into another species.

Ring species Laughat

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Again, you're refusing to see anything other than your 'dream state' of things. However, this is shifting into 'Species/Kind' type of talking and some one else is asking you questions about all that.

I will tell "someone else" the same thing I am telling you...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish....until you can show me something contrary to what man has EVER observed, then we shouldn't be having a discussion about whether the animals of yesterday is able to do something that the animals of today haven't been observed to do.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  But.. there's no evidence for any gods. Please, offer something up which can be seen as proof.

I am more than capable of defending each one of these traditional arguments for the existence of God, and I offer these arguments as evidence for God...

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The Argument from Consciousness
3. The Moral Argument
4. The Modal Ontological Argument
5. The Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Pick one, and I challenge you or anyone else to a real-time debate on either of these topics.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... what explanatory power does god have?

What we have is a universe that began to exist, so the cause of the universe had to be immaterial, timeless, and a being of enormous power and knowledge. Now, there is no coincidence that the attributes needed to create the universe, just HAPPENS to be the same attributes that God has always been said to have Consider

That, my friend, is explanatory power.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  What prediction can you make about god?

My belief isn't based on a method at which "prediction" is part of the methodology.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No, definitely not. As has been stated, repeatedly, before. Evolution deals with life and the changes their in.

Forget the 'Beginning' bit. Currently, there is life. (To which I'll assume you agree/Say yes.)

For a very long time there has been life. (To which I'll await your saying yes or no to 'Very long.')

Over every generation all down through said very long time changes have been taking place. Hence evolution.

I see you are deliberatley missing the point. I will not explain it any further.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  While this is an interesting idea there's one small thing. The Geological records show that

A) Now we have life.

B) At one point on the planet there was no life.

So... life 'came' from some where. Now, you say a god did it. Great. That doesn't explain the 'How' of a god doing it. Do you see/understand my point here?

Well, to hell with the question of "how" God and/or nature did it...I just want good solid evidence THAT God and/or nature did it, and I believe I have the evidence that God did it, but no evidence that nature did it...in fact, I have evidence AGAINST nature doing anything.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  And...having answered all your points in sequence you can see how the above statement is simply not true.

What you've done is commit the cart before the horse fallacy...and if that is fine with you, then it is fine with me.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You repeating it and using simple, but poor, analogies doesn't add anything.

Laugh out load @ quoting the analogy but not directly addressing it. I will attribute such a dodge to the principal of not being able to rebuttal the truth.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You've got to, I don't know... 'Step back'? Seriously. Just concentrate on the evolution part of things and try and understand what is going on with it. Then, after you've got the understanding, you can start wailing on abiogenisis. Smile

Here is "what is going on with it". I am being sold a story that long ago, before no one was around to see it, animals were making these dramatic changes in their forms...and I am also being told that these changes take so long, that no one alive today will be able to see it...so we didn't see it 400 millions years ago, and we won't see it during our lifetime...so we will never see it, but it happens.

That is what I am being sold...sorry Charlie, I aint buying it.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  A simple 'Yes'. Again, forget about 'The beginning' and take up the tale half way through.

So, changes in life could occur even if it is scientifically impossible for life to come from nonlife? Based on such a nonsensical response, I will no longer discuss evolution with you any longer. My common-sensical mind cannot entertain such nonsense.

I will still spank you on the mind/body dualism subject though. Slap you around a few more times in that regard.

(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The problem is, they accept it by faith. All you've ever seen is animals produce what they are, not what they aren't...

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... your sentence has kind of 'spread' over a wider meaning than I think you've intended.

Asking "How can you get consciousness from unconscious matter" is pretty straight forward, in my opinion

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  There's a difference between 'Currently conscious' and 'Development of conscious'. So, lets try and keep those two terms/ideas separate, okay?

Ok, well lets start from the "development of consciousness" and work our way up, shall we?

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Seriously, stop with the trying to tie fekkin' abiogenesis into every thing. Heck, you show me how you can get up in the morning without abiogenesis. Since, if abiogenesis isn't true, you can't get up in the morning.

It is by the grace of God that I awoke this morning. I know you don't like it, but that is my story, and I'm sticking to it.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Right... but their brains (All the matter) inside the skull is , like, rotten and stuff. You get that, right? I mean, literally, once you turn off the organic systems things instantly start to break down at a cellular level. You understand that, right?

Which is only saying that one entity is still there (the brain) and the other entity is not there (the mind). No problems there...in fact, that is MY POINT Laugh out load

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No, this analogy isn't working or making sense. It's actually working against you understanding what 'Thinking' is all about.

If I gave the analogy of you assembling a computer together if there were scattered computer parts on the table, I bet you could figure that analogy out, but since it involves the brain/consciousness (which you don't have a clue how it originated), all of a sudden, the "analogy isn't working or making sense" Laugh out load

If you are gonna dodge stuff, try to make it a little less apparent.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No, really? You haven't seen the pictures of MRI scans showing the synapse firing pattern when images are registered? Really? What do you think neurons do? What are neurons all packed into people's skulls actually for, then?

Nonsense. Hook a machine up to my brain and tell me what it is I am thinking. If you can't do that, then you are failing to understand the kind of mess you are in.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  It... it, just doesn't work the way you're thinking (Argh! 'Think-ception' Hobo )

Blank assertions like the above quote is just a diversion. You don't know what is going on here, do you?

I will just leave it there. As I scroll down the post, I am failing to get answers to my questions...I am just getting a bunch of red herring diversions. If you don't have an answer to the questions, just say "I don't know".

I thought that is what atheists (the modest ones) were about...the whole "I don't know" crap??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 06:19 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 11:28 AM)natachan Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 10:47 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Show me a reptile-bird transformation and I will have God here in a half hour Thumbsup

[Image: 50b3da12cce50.jpg]

Because you know both are impossible.

I call bullshit on the reptile-bird transformation too Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 06:21 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 11:31 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  No, that would be weird. Like really weird. It would also go against what Evolution says.

Weird? You are the one that believe reptiles evolved in to birds Laugh out load Oh, wait...let me guess "It doesn't work that way", right Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 06:23 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 11:37 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  That's one of the things I never got.
They want to see a lizard give birth to a bird as evidence of evolution, when in fact that would actually help them disprove evolution.

How the hell is it disproving evolution when the whole theory is based on the false notion that macro-level changes occurred millions of years ago???
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 06:29 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Fall of the Mild:
You're over five hours late and you didn't bring god with you.
I'm afraid this will reflect poorly on your performance record.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
27-02-2015, 06:34 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 12:01 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  So you think reptiles understand English do you? I have to ask cause given your track record it's probable that you do.

People have already pointed out that that's not how evolution operates so take your strawman and shove it up your ass hat first. You and I both know that that is not what evolution says happens so feigning ignorance like it is at this point is just you trying to be an asshole.

Good job, you're an asshole. You done? Drinking Beverage

Have you ever seen a reptile-bird kind of transformation? No, you haven't. So regardless of how you THINK evolution operates...guess what, you haven't SEEN IT. You are relying on the unseen.

I have no reason to believe that animals that lived 400 million years ago were doing things that the animals of 2015 haven't been observed to do. You can believe that crap if you want to, but that isn't science, that is religion. Science is based on OBSERVATION....EXPERIMENT...AND PREDICTIONS...and you've never OBSERVED a macro-level change in your life...you've never conducted an EXPERIMENT that would get you macro-level results...and you cannot PREDICT when the next macro-level change will occur...so basically, evolution on a macro scale isn't even science.

Evolution is a lie...animals can/will only produce what they are, not what they AREN'T....just like Genesis 1:25 stated when God created the animals, he said "They will bring forth after their KIND"...and holy shit, that is all we see, is animals bringing forth after their KIND, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, snakes produce snakes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: