I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2015, 02:07 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 06:21 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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

Exactly. Evolution is gradual change over time, through multiple generations, while you asked for a certain creature to give birth to another creature. That doesn't make sense, not even in a fantasy book, and it's not what evolution states.

What it states is that organisms reproduce and during this process, there might be mutations. Some mutations will be neutral, others harmful and others beneficial to the specific creature. The beneficial ones will make sure that the organism can survive long enough to reproduce again, passing on its genes.

Harmful or neutral mutations will hinder this process, so even if not clear-cut, you'll see organisms with beneficial mutations reproducing more, this will make sure that they will spread more genes. Now think about this over millions and millions of years. Why is it so weird for a small change now to account for major changes over such a huge period of time.

Not sure where, but I've made an analogy recently so I'll repeat it here. Do you look the same to what you liked like one, 2,3,10 minutes ago? I would say yes. But what about in 10 years? 25 years? 50 years from now? Every minute you look the same as the one before it, but in a longer period of time, you will look very differently. And if 10 years are enough for that, why couldn't it happen in millions and millions of years? You could say that I'm not evolving but I'm growing, true, but the point I'm making is: small changes over time can account for major changes.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Polyglot Atheist's post
28-02-2015, 05:34 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Is CotW still prancing around like his shit doesn't stink?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 08:04 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2015 08:09 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
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
Rolleyes

"It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered.

Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula ("wishbone") and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds."

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/bi...teryx.html

[Image: 10xfzti.jpg]

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 08:08 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 02:07 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Exactly. Evolution is gradual change over time, through multiple generations, while you asked for a certain creature to give birth to another creature. That doesn't make sense, not even in a fantasy book, and it's not what evolution states.

I am saying it didn't happen at all, whether suddenly or gradually. No one can deny that changes occur over time, but there are limits to the changes, and these changes, so far as ANYONE has ever seen, are limited to the "kinds". There are big dogs, little dogs, small dogs, tall dogs, hairy dogs, not so hairy dogs, etc...but they are all DOGS. That is the only type of change that you see, I see, ANYONE see.

The evolutionist want to sell us (those that don't believe it) the idea that long ago, far and wide, when no one was around to see it, that there were these reptile-bird type of changes, and I am saying that there is absolutely no scientific reason to believe such nonsense.

(28-02-2015 02:07 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  What it states is that organisms reproduce and during this process, there might be mutations. Some mutations will be neutral, others harmful and others beneficial to the specific creature. The beneficial ones will make sure that the organism can survive long enough to reproduce again, passing on its genes.

And each beneficial gene will be limited to whatever kind of animal that possesses the gene.

(28-02-2015 02:07 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Harmful or neutral mutations will hinder this process, so even if not clear-cut, you'll see organisms with beneficial mutations reproducing more, this will make sure that they will spread more genes. Now think about this over millions and millions of years. Why is it so weird for a small change now to account for major changes over such a huge period of time.

Why is it so hard to believe that the animals of yesterday only produced what they are, not what they aren't....just like the animals of today only produce what they are, not what they aren't?

(28-02-2015 02:07 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Not sure where, but I've made an analogy recently so I'll repeat it here. Do you look the same to what you liked like one, 2,3,10 minutes ago? I would say yes. But what about in 10 years? 25 years? 50 years from now? Every minute you look the same as the one before it, but in a longer period of time, you will look very differently. And if 10 years are enough for that, why couldn't it happen in millions and millions of years? You could say that I'm not evolving but I'm growing, true, but the point I'm making is: small changes over time can account for major changes.

But these small changes are not making me into a different "kind"...I am not evolving into something different than I was when I was born. The reptile-bird thing, that is an animal that was once one kind of animal, and then became another kind of animal.

Now, you can believe that this stuff happens, but there is no scientific evidence for it, it is just fallacious reasoning, faulty interpretations, and voodoo science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 08:11 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 08:04 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  "It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered.

Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula ("wishbone") and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds."

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/bi...teryx.html

[Image: 10xfzti.jpg]

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load So maybe God created birds with teeth and claws back in the day, and those kind of birds have long died out and now no birds have teeth...why assume that this is a transitional fossil from a reptile to a bird??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 08:17 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 08:11 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load So maybe God created birds with teeth and claws back in the day, and those kind of birds have long died out and now no birds have teeth...why assume that this is a transitional fossil from a reptile to a bird??

What is it that you think differentiates one 'kind' from another? Please be precise.

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
28-02-2015, 08:25 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am saying it didn't happen at all, whether suddenly or gradually. No one can deny that changes occur over time, but there are limits to the changes, ...

What mechanism do you propose limits the changes?

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
28-02-2015, 08:26 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 09:41 PM)natachan Wrote:  I remember the last attempt someone made to prove god through the resurrection of Jesus. He fell at the starting line when he couldn't even prove the existence of Jesus. Was actually kinda funny.

I am not him, and he is not me.

(27-02-2015 09:41 PM)natachan Wrote:  The ontological is one that can't get me past the starting line. Perhaps it's because I'm an engineer with the mind of a scientist. Just because I can imagine something doesn't mean it exists. So this simply doesn't make sense to me.

Well, since in the Modal version of the argument (which is what I am defending), there is no such premise as "because I can imagine it, therefore, it is true"...so I guess that elementary objection you just made doesn't apply here, now does it?

(27-02-2015 09:41 PM)natachan Wrote:  The moral argument also doesn't make sense to me. Why does our existence as a social species mean that we have to have a god?

Again, since this elementary objection has nothing to do with the argument, I will agree with you and ask the same question you asked..."Why does our existence as a social species mean that we have to have a god?"

(27-02-2015 09:41 PM)natachan Wrote:  The argument from consciousness falls apart when you study psychology and paleontology and paleo archeology, which I thank state gen ed requirements for forcing me to take.

Ok, then please explain how mental states can originate from physical properties.

(27-02-2015 09:41 PM)natachan Wrote:  Kalam is also a non-starter for me. I don't accept any of the premises and don't see why they should be accepted.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (shit doesn't just pop in to being uncaused out of nothing)

2. The universe began to exist (based on observation and philosophical reasoning)

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (since #1 and #2 are true, then #3 just logically follows, regardless of whether anyone likes it, agrees with it, or believes it).

(27-02-2015 09:41 PM)natachan Wrote:  But above all none of these make any sense for one reason. The existence or non of god is a fact about the universe. It is independent of anything else. Every word in all holy scriptures can be wrong and there can still be a god. Or some of the stories could be true and god could not exist. The argument must be based on its own merits.

Awww listen to you, trying to sound so intellectual...so sophisticated, thats so cuteeeeeLaugh out load

You are at least partially correct in what you say...and yes, every argument is based on its own merits.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 08:36 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 08:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  What is it that you think differentiates one 'kind' from another? Please be precise.

I will put it to you this way, Chas...I am sure you have either children, or grandchildren...or even nieces and nephews...so this is what I want you to do for me; conduct an experiment....all of the children in your family between the ages of 5-7....show them pictures of a lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, ocelot, and turtle.

Now you ask the children, "Which animal is different than the rest", and know you have bright young children in your family, so I guaranDAMNtee all of them will choose the turtle.

Now, if a 5 year old can distinguish the differences in the "kinds", then why can't mature adults?? Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 08:43 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...
limited to the "kinds". There are big dogs, little dogs, small dogs, tall dogs, hairy dogs, not so hairy dogs, etc...but they are all DOGS.
...

The a-religious instructor part of me should know better but...

CotW, would you try a little delve into critical thinking with me and step a short way outside of your box?

Question:
What do "Life", "Consciousness" and "Dog" and for that matter "Gods / Goddesses" all have in common.

Answer:
They are all useful labels to help language-proficient mammals (humans) categorise phenomena into a model to facilitate description and investigation.

For extra marks... which of those four labels is the odd one out? And why?

Cheers.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: