I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2015, 01:19 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 08:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 08:36 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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

So, you refuse to be precise? Try again, only this time explain it in biological terms.

It's always the turtles.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
28-02-2015, 01:28 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2015 01:37 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
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...
So there is no such thing as gradual changes over time, but you don't deny that changes occur over time?
[Image: breaking-badfacepalmjesse-pinkmanannoyedamc.gif]

Tap dance in 3...2....1...

(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  but there are limits to the changes

Say's who?

(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  and these changes, so far as ANYONE has ever seen, are limited to the "kinds".
"This thing that takes millions of years is not happening right before my eyes instantly and thus it's wrong."
The fact that evolution is not doing what it's not supposed to do is not evidence against it.

"Kind" is not a recognized term and unless you give a definition I'm gonna delete it from your responses when I answer them. Right in the middle of sentences. They will make no less sense and that should tell you something. But it won't.

(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  There are big dogs, little dogs, small dogs, tall dogs, hairy dogs, not so hairy dogs, etc...but they are all DOGS.
And they are not the same "kind", but of the same family: Canidae. See we actually have REAL and RECOGNIZED terms for this shit, maybe go out and learn them.
Oh and Modern dogs and modern cats have a shared ancestor in the Eocene from which they have both evolved, one branch into caniforms (dogs) and the other into feliforms (cats). Not that you believe that, but that makes no impact on the fact it's been proven.

(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The evolutionist want to sell us ...
Reality. The word you are looking for what scientists want to show us is reality. Evolution is a reality. Tell me why exactly that the only people who seem to have a problem with the science of evolution are those, like yourself, with a woeful lack of scientific education and a whole lot of religion?

Yes I'm sure it's the geniuses with years and years of scientific education and training getting it wrong and not the highschool drop out waving around a book of fairytale on an internet forum lying his ass off and dismissing evidence he does not even understand or has even read who's got it right. Sounds legit. Drinking Beverage

(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  and I am saying that there is absolutely no scientific reason to believe such nonsense.
Which might come close to being a valid point if you had a basic education in science. Seeing as you don't, you're just wrong. No further refutation required.


(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Why is it so hard to believe that the animals of yesterday only produced what they are, not what they aren't
It's this little thing called "evidence", I know you have heard of it even if you try your damnedest to avoid shaking hands with it personally.

Let me ask you a question: If new species don't arise from old species where did the new species that have only existed in the last 50 million years (like caniforms) come from seeing as there were none before that? They were not a part of "creation" from the start so where did they come from? Does "god" create new species incrementally at the exact right time so as to make it look indistinguishable from evolution? Why are we not seeing new species pop up from nothingness all the time? Were they hiding on the moon the whole time, a race of Moon foxes?


(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But these small changes.....
Deleted the rest cause you won't stop using the word kind and you are arguing like you think we are saying individuals are constantly evolving. If you can't even grasp the basics stop talking.

(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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.
Nope, wrong again. How would you even know there is evidence for it or not when you have already admitted to rejecting evidence before you even know what it is or have reviewed it?
You are wrong, sorry little kid but you are.

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
[+] 7 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
28-02-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 01:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(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...
So there is no such thing as gradual changes over time, but you don't deny that changes occur over time?
[Image: breaking-badfacepalmjesse-pinkmanannoyedamc.gif]

Tap dance in 3...2....1...

(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  but there are limits to the changes

Say's who?

(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  and these changes, so far as ANYONE has ever seen, are limited to the "kinds".
"This thing that takes millions of years is not happening right before my eyes instantly and thus it's wrong."
The fact that evolution is not doing what it's not supposed to do is not evidence against it.

"Kind" is not a recognized term and unless you give a definition I'm gonna delete it from your responses when I answer them. Right in the middle of sentences. They will make no less sense and that should tell you something. But it won't.

(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  There are big dogs, little dogs, small dogs, tall dogs, hairy dogs, not so hairy dogs, etc...but they are all DOGS.
And they are not the same "kind", but of the same family: Canidae. See we actually have REAL and RECOGNIZED terms for this shit, maybe go out and learn them.
Oh and Modern dogs and modern cats have a shared ancestor in the Eocene from which they have both evolved, one branch into caniforms (dogs) and the other into feliforms (cats). Not that you believe that, but that makes no impact on the fact it's been proven.

(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The evolutionist want to sell us ...
Reality. The word you are looking for what scientists want to show us is reality. Evolution is a reality. Tell me why exactly that the only people who seem to have a problem with the science of evolution are those, like yourself, with a woeful lack of scientific education and a whole lot of religion?

Yes I'm sure it's the geniuses with years and years of scientific education and training getting it wrong and not the highschool drop out waving around a book of fairytale on an internet forum lying his ass off and dismissing evidence he does not even understand or has even read who's got it right. Sounds legit. Drinking Beverage

(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  and I am saying that there is absolutely no scientific reason to believe such nonsense.
Which might come close to being a valid point if you had a basic education in science. Seeing as you don't, your just wrong. No further refutation required.



(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Why is it so hard to believe that the animals of yesterday only produced what they are, not what they aren't
It's this little thing called "evidence", I know you have heard of it even if you never shock hands with it personally.

Let me ask you a question: If new species don't arise from old species where did the new species that have only existed in the last 50 million years (like caniforms) come from seeing as there were none before that? They were not a part of "creation" from the start so where did they come from? Does "god" create new species incrementally at the exact right time so as to make it look indistinguishable from evolution? Why are we not seeing new species pop up from nothingness all the time? Were they hiding on the moon the whole time, a race of Moon foxes?


(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But these small changes.....
Deleted the rest cause you won't stop using the word kind and you are arguing like you think we are saying individuals are constantly evolving. If you can't even grasp the basics stop talking.

(28-02-2015 08:08 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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.
Nope, wrong again. How would you even know there is evidence for it or not when you have already admitted to rejecting evidence before you even know what it is or have reviewed it?
You are wrong, sorry little kid but you are.

10/10 on the ass beating scale. Well done Whiskey BowingBowingBowing

"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
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
28-02-2015, 01:36 PM
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??

I could ask why, if god created this kinda bird in the beginning when he created all animals, it does not show up at all with the earliest fossils. I could but instead I'm gonna say the reason god could not have created birds with teeth and claws back in the day is because neither your god or the act of creation is real.

Glad we could clear that up. Drinking Beverage

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
28-02-2015, 02:23 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2015 02:29 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
As natachan said, Pants-on-head retarded this one.

Fucker is dug in deeper than an Alabama tick in his own ignorance.

Hey! CotW is the Dan Quayle of our Forum!



Stupid, full of shit and fucking nuts

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
28-02-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Human intuition is not a good measure for classifying species, or "kinds".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 02:49 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2015 07:08 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 08:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am not him, and he is not me.
You are right about that. He was a bit crazier then you, but he was also smarter then you and better at stating his points and explaining what little reasoning he had.
So basically what I am saying is that you are a bigger idiot then an idiot that already failed. Which is why you have actually done worse then that guy.

(28-02-2015 08:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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?
The ontological argument, modal, or otherwise is idiotic word play first off and arguments are not evidence secondly.

That said even if I entertained the ontological argument as true just for the sake of argument it disproves the god of the bible almost immediately.

(28-02-2015 08:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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?"
It doesn't, and thankfully humanity as a whole is moving closer and closer to the realization that the gods of our ancestors don't exist. Next question.

(28-02-2015 08:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Ok, then please explain how mental states can originate from physical properties.
Why? It's been explained to you a dozen times over by multiple people and you have either edited the explanation out of the quotes you respond to or you have just ignored it. You don't deserve any further opportunities to be dishonest.

(28-02-2015 08:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (shit doesn't just pop in to being uncaused out of nothing)
And you have failed right out of the gate, that's impressive.
1.) Quantum mechanics has shown that things can literally pop in and out of existence. The universe at the quantum level is not intuitive or run on "common sense".
2.) Cause and effect are laws of an already existent universe. I've got a question for you kid, one that I have asked a shit ton of theists on here and the vast majority don't even TRY to answer: What stops something from coming from nothing if that same nothing contains no law of cause and effect?

(28-02-2015 08:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  2. The universe began to exist (based on observation and philosophical reasoning)
Oooooooh! So it counts as observation even when you are not there to observe it when it's something YOU want to use to try and make YOUR point. How convenient.

If the evidence left behind by the origin of the universe is good enough to prove the universe had an origin, then the evidence (of which there is a whole lot more) left behind by the process of evolution is good enough to prove evolution you double standard having, special pleading mother fucker.

(28-02-2015 08:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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).
Considering #1 is wrong, number 3 falls apart. You would also have to prove, PROVE, that the state of the matter and energy in the universe at the time of the Big Bang did not exist in some other form before the big bang, that that other pre-big bang form is not eternal, and that that form can not be the cause of the big bang.

You are so far from the answer you don't even know what the question is.

(28-02-2015 08:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Awww listen to you, trying to sound so intellectual...so sophisticated, thats so cuteeeeeLaugh out load
[Image: iSjaAOA.gif]
He says to the person he told the brain is made of cartilage.

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
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
28-02-2015, 02:52 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 02:32 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Human intuition is not a good measure for classifying species, or "kinds".

You got that right. We can't even get certain species of fish in the right genera by using morphological clues. DNA studies are turning much of what we thought we knew on it's head. At the moment I'm helping collect species of fish for DNA testing, the goal is to properly classify all the world's fish species.

The other issue we're running into is determining at what point is a geographically separated species different enough in their DNA to label as separate species. This goes to show how slowly but surely species diverge from one another over time.

Because many fish release gametes into open water (as opposed to laying and securing eggs to substrate) they populate far away islands. Over time the species evolve and adapt to their new geographic site. Experiments have been done where the seminal specie is paired with the now separate specie and they choose NOT to mate. Really interesting stuff.

PS Notice that the word "kind" is not used CotW

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
28-02-2015, 03:53 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
I resent being called a man!

I'm a droid!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 04:14 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(28-02-2015 03:53 PM)natachan Wrote:  I'm a droid!

Though obviously not the type of Droid Call_of_the_Wild is looking for. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: