I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2015, 04:48 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 03:28 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  You guys are way more dedicated to the argument than I ever will be lol.

Maybe you all just have more free time than I do?

Yeah, ever since I got married, I have no life Laugh out load

(01-03-2015 03:28 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  125 pages of arguing? Aren't you done yet?

When I first made this thread, I didn't know it would stretch this long. I thought there would be more than enough acceptances of my debate challenges...I guess I was sadly mistaken.

To answer the question...every day I wake up with a renewed level of energy, and as long as there are people on here that feel a need to comment, then, so will Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 05:14 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 12:18 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I will just place this here.....

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum...verse.html

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

Nahhh, bruh...you still have problems. First off, lets define some terms. From this point on, when I say "cosmos", I am talking about all physical reality, which will include the observational universe, and also any physical reality that we don't currently know about. The whole she-bang. But when I say "universe", I am talking specifically about OUR universe. Ok?

Now, second, the universe began to exist. Even guys like Krauss admit this, so when he comes out with nonsense models that has to do with "A universe from nothing", he is making a piss poor attempt at trying to explain where our universe came from, even if it defies all logic and intuition. No need to try to argue whether or not our universe had a beginning, because there is no physicist that maintains that the universe is infinite and eternal. Just admit that the scientific evidence for a finite universe is well researched, well evidenced, and well attested.

Third, the evidence for the beginning of the universe has been confirmed by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which applies to virtually all cosmological models that is out there today....and the second law of thermodynamics....and these scientific confirmations are backed up with philosophical arguments against an actually infinite chain of events, and an actually infinite "set" of things.

Fourth, the good thing about the philosophical arguments is the fact that they are completely independent of physics, so it doesn't matter what direction science is going in, or what the latest discovery is....the philosophical arguments are so strong that even God himself could not get you an actual infinite number of things, so even God himself is subject to laws of logic and cannot violate them...and if God can't do it, no one can do it Laugh out load

(01-03-2015 12:18 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Duh.

(01-03-2015 12:18 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

Which is why at that point you need to look behind physics/science...metaphysics is needed.

(01-03-2015 12:18 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  "The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
Girl_nails

The latter part of your copy & pasting work of art states that the universe has no beginning and no end..yet, the former part states "In the beginning, everything that existed". Consider

Second, it doesn't appear to make any kind of sense, anyway. So what are you saying? That all matter in the universe was once condensed in a single point? So what was it doing, sitting around for eternity and waiting to expand some 13.8 billion years ago?? Makes no sense.

Third, it makes no sense because if the universe is all there is, and nothing is external to it, then there weren't any pre-causal conditions that would have caused it to expand at all, let alone some 13.8 billion years ago, so there was absolutely no reason whatsoever why it expanded when it did.

So try again Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 05:15 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 04:38 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(01-03-2015 10:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  We have hypotheses, but we don't yet know.

Good, so you admit that we don't know. That took courage, Chas. Admitting such a thing in front of all your friends on here. I am impressed Thumbsup

If you don't know how life originated from nonlife...abiogenesis just very well COULD be false right?? We will take this step by step, Chas.

Courage? You clearly do not understand what science is. Read my signature.

Quote:
(01-03-2015 10:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  That doesn't mean you get to make shit up.

I said that there is no scientific confirmation that life came from nonlife, and that consciousness came from unconsciousness...and that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats...excuse me sir, but what part am I making up?

Consciousness emerges from nothing every time a new human comes into existence. We develop from a single unconscious cell to become a conscious human being.

You keep making unsupported assertions.

Quote:
(01-03-2015 10:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  Now stop avoiding my question.

I said take whatever biological term you'd like, and use it...but that STILL doesn't do anything to support YOUR position, that reptile-bird kind of transformations can occur.

Please define 'kind' or stop using it as if it means something.

Why do you think that many small changes can't add up to large changes? The differences in DNA between, to use your example, cats and dogs is quite small. They are very closely related. We have fossil evidence as well as the DNA that shows they are descended from a common ancestor.

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
01-03-2015, 05:24 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 05:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nahhh, bruh...you still have problems. First off, lets define some terms.

Ya how about we start with "Kind".

[Image: tumblr_ledg9zl3QZ1qdlkgg.gif]
Asshole.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
01-03-2015, 05:26 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2015 05:52 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 04:40 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(01-03-2015 03:47 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Genesis 1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Who wrote that COTW? Who witnessed it in order to write it? Don't say Moses because then you fail, yet again, today's test of bible historicity 101.

Moses has traditionally been attributed to the authorship. I don't know who "witnessed it"...just like I don't know who "witnessed" the Declaration of Independence being drafted up...all I know is what I was told. Come to think of it, that is all you know, too.

The existence of Moses as well as the veracity of the Exodus story are disputed among archaeologists and Egyptologists, with experts in the field of biblical criticism citing logical inconsistencies, new archaeological evidence, historical evidence, and related origin myths in Canaanite culture.

When you analyze the Pentateuch, you will find doublets and triplets. These are pairs of stories which occur in two separate locations in the text. The doublets generally do not agree fully; there are usually minor differences between the stories. R.E. Friedman, in his 1997 book "Who Wrote the Bible?" lists a number of them:

Two creation stories in Genesis.
Two descriptions of the Abrahamic covenant.
Two stories of the naming of Isaac.
Two instances where Abraham deceived a king by introducing his wife Sarah as his sister.
Two stories of Jacob traveling to Mesopotamia
Two stories of a revelation at Beth-el to Jacob.
Two accounts of God changing Jacob's name to Israel
Two instances where Moses extracted water from two different rocks at two different locations called Meribah.

These doublets appeared to contradict each other. In most cases, one referred to God as Yahweh while the other used the term Elohim.

Theologians reason that a much more logical explanation is that the books were written by multiple authors who lived long after the events described. That would have allowed the oral tradition to be passed from generation to generation in different areas of the land so that they had a chance to deviate from each other before being written down.

Both Judaism and Christianity assumed that the Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) were written by Moses, as the Bible itself states. However, in recent centuries, alternative authorship has been proposed. The documentary hypothesis is now accepted by essentially all mainline and liberal theologians.

- 11th Century CE: Isaac ibn Yashush suggested that the list of the Edomite kings in Genesis 36 was added by an unknown person after Moses died. For this assertion, he became known as "Isaac the Blunderer."

- 15th Century: Bishop Tostatus suggested that certain passages were written by one of the prophets, not by Moses.

- 16th Century: Andreas van Maes suggested that an editor added additional material to some of Moses' writings.

- 17th Century: Thomas Hobbes prepared a collection of passages that seemed to negate Moses' authorship.

- 18th Century: Three investigators (Witter, Astruc and Eichhorn) independently concluded that doublets in the Torah were written by two different authors. A doublet is a story that is described twice.

- 19th Century: Scholars noticed that there were a few triplets in the Torah. This indicated that a third author was involved. Then, they determined that the book of Deuteronomy was written in a different language style from the remaining 4 books in the Pentateuch. Finally, by the end of the 19th Century, liberal scholars reached a consensus that 4 authors and one redactor (editor) had been actively involved in the writing of the Pentateuch.

- 20th Century: Academics have continued to refine the Documentary Hypothesis by identifying which verses (and parts of verses) were authored by the various writers. They have also attempted to uncover the names of the authors. In 1943, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in which he urged academics to study the sources of Biblical texts. Recent archaeological discoveries and new linguistic analysis tools have facilitated the research into the hypothesis.

Belief in the documentary hypothesis was triggered by a number of factors, such as:

- Anachronisms, like the list of the Edomite kings;

- Duplicate and triplicate passages

- Various passages portrayed God in different ways;

- The flood story appears to involve the meshing of two separate stories;

- The belief, centuries ago, by archaeologists and linguists that writing among the ancient Hebrews only developed after the events portrayed in the Pentateuch. Thus, Moses would have been incapable of writing the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures.

These factors led theologians to the conclusion that the Pentateuch is a hybrid document which was written well after Moses' death, and much later than the events portrayed. The authors and redactors are unknown, and are commonly referred to as authors J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), P (Priestly) and D (Deuteronomist).

"The authors of genesis did not know much about this long history...." (Boadt, 1984, p.109)

Look at you learning shit COTW, and they say a mind is a terrible thing to waste....

by the way your test grade today is.....

F

Reference:

Boadt, L. (1984). Reading the old testament: an introduction. New York. Paulist Press. Print.

"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
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
01-03-2015, 05:43 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 04:38 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(01-03-2015 10:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  We have hypotheses, but we don't yet know.

Good, so you admit that we don't know. That took courage, Chas. Admitting such a thing in front of all your friends on here. I am impressed Thumbsup

If you don't know how life originated from nonlife...abiogenesis just very well COULD be false right?? We will take this step by step, Chas.

FFS, how many times does one have to say that one doesn't know? Why does saying you don't know take courage? Revelation time...Wide of the Mark simply lacks courage.

Wide of the Mark agrees that animals change over time but thinks evolution is false. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like joben1's post
01-03-2015, 05:44 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 05:24 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(01-03-2015 05:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Nahhh, bruh...you still have problems. First off, lets define some terms.

Ya how about we start with "Kind".
That one would be really fun to hear.
But I suspect it'll never come. Sad

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostLocke's post
01-03-2015, 05:48 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Divert and run, seriously ain't there a window you need to be getting to?

More rhetoric? Less substance? But I asked for more substance, less rhetoric Dodgy

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  That's not an argument you get to make after repeatedly rejecting entire fields of study before you even look into what they mean. You have said you will reject arguments before you even hear them.
Hypocritical dick.

I reject the evidence that has been presented to me thus far.

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You have yet to raise a single substantive point since you got here. Word games, lies, and baseless assertions are all you have had. So that's also not a complaint you get to make. Fuck sake you can't even define "kind" after days DAYS of people asking.

Well damn, I said that I will continue to use kind, and you people can use whatever biological term you want to distinguish the difference between a turtle and a cat...that is about as fair as it can get Laugh out load

You see, my point is independent of biological terms, so I really don't give a damn what biological terms you feel the need to use. When you have the truth on your side, semantic shit doesn't really matter.

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  So you don't deny that changes over time occur...but you deny that changes over time occur. You know what the word gradual means right?

What I cant deny is that over time, there are certain changes. Who know how many different breeds/species of dogs we may have in X amount of years. Those are the changes that we can see...those are the changes that we can experiment on, and predict. But what we have never seen any kind of changes that YOU believe occurred when you were conveniently NOT around to witness it, and that is reptile-bird type changes.

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Except that they don't, you lying sack of shit. The "experiences and observations" of people working in the fields of genetics, embryology, taxonomy, genealogy, paleontology, and about a dozen other fields all show evolution to be fact.

Lying? Have you ever seen a reptile-bird type of change? No, you haven't. Until you do, go to the bar and refill your glass with some more "shut the fuck up". The drink is on me, btw.

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You have it in your head that observation has to be in real time to be valid and there is no one in the field of science that says this.

If someone has a theory that is based on modern day man (of any given time in history) NOT being there to witness it, then I question the theory...and not only because of that, but because of the other problems that is plaguing the theory...like the whole abiogenesis and consciousness shit.

"No one has ever seen it happen, and no one WILL ever see it happen, but....it happens" Laugh out load

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Observation of the fossil record (which you rejected without knowing what it was) alone proves evolution.

When you find a fossil, and you conclude anything besides "this once living thing has now died", then you've just left science...you've immediately left science and went straight to your religion.

You presuppose evolution, so anything that you find, your presupposition is going to interpret the finding for you.

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  DNA sequencing alone proves evolution.

Where did the information in the DNA come from?

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You can say that scientists have evolution wrong till you are blue in the face, but it would require them all to be wrong, at every point int he fields history, every scientist, in every lab, in every country all being wrong in different ways and yet still getting the exact same results.

Then Satan has fooled a lot of people, apparently...and what does the Bible say, "They will exchange the truth of God for a lie, and served the things God created instead of the Creator." (Romans 1:25)

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Look at the little monkey using theory wrong. Also you are lying, because it has been proven.....by the fields you rejected without examining. DNA and fossils for example.

*Noting racial implications* Its all good Thumbsup

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Except that it has, so you can stop lying at any point.

Dude, just shut up. I said that no one has ever observed a reptile-bird kind of transformation...where is the lie in stating that? That is a fact, a fact that you haven't come to gripes with yet.

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The ACTUAL difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is timescale and that is it. Macroevolution is not about huge, single generation, changes in one animal. It's not "reptiles giving birth to birds" as you so stupidly keep trying to argue from like a fucking idiot with no idea of the basics.

If the archeo is a transitional fossil from a reptile to a bird, then newsflash for you, dumbass...that is a reptile changing into a bird...which means that something gave birth to it...now you can pretty it up all the hell you want to, I really don't give a damn.

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  There is only micro-evolution, macro-evolution is simply a whole bunch of micro changes examined over a large time period. Micro is the scale of a single generation, macro is looking at the micro changes in hundreds and thousands of generations.

A theory with no evidence is a naked theory.

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  It's been explained to you a fucking dozen or more times now that your "evolution says dogs should give birth to turtles lol duuuur" is bullshit. this croco-duck nonsense needs to stop.

First off, I never said or implied that dogs COULD give birth to turtles...I only used the dog-turtle thing to point out to your ignorant ass that there is an obvious difference between the two animals.

Second, if a reptile eventually became a bird, then why can't a turtle eventually become a dog...but wait a minute, "that's not how evolution works"...well again, no one has ever even seen evolution work how it SUPPOSED to work Laugh out load

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Canidae will give birth to other canidae but because genetic replication is not a flawless process those new Canidae will have unique genetic differences. Those very slightly unique differences with then get passed on to the seconds generations children and it will continue like that over generation after generation after generation and eventually the combination of those changes will be so extreme that the last generation will bear no resemblance to the first generation.

The differences you are talking about is slight differences WITHIN THE KIND...we have dozens of different kinds of dogs out there...but they are all FUCKING dogs. No dog is slowly changing into a non-dog.

(01-03-2015 12:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The way it does not work is that animals dump millions of small genetic changes INTO A SINGLE FUCKING GENERATION which is what you continue to try and argue from. That's how reptiles evolved into modern birds, not "lol iguana gave birth to a pelican". Seriously Call_of_the_Wild, you need to learn the fucking basics.

Right, and your answer is "it takes so long to occur"...you have to appeal to time to get your stupid theory to work. It is just too convenient...the whole theory depends on humans NOT being here to witness it, yet, it happens. If you don't see the con with this, I can't help you.

And from now on my responses to you will be shorter and shorter until I just stop talking to you altogether...all of that editing my posts shit is petty, disingenuous, and immature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If the archeo is a transitional fossil from a reptile to a bird, then newsflash for you, dumbass...that is a reptile changing into a bird...which means that something gave birth to it...now you can pretty it up all the hell you want to, I really don't give a damn.

What the fuck are you arguing about then? We know that animals give birth you complete and utter thick shitted cartilage brained fucknoodle. Where the fuck do these people come from?

Wide of the Mark agrees that animals change over time but thinks evolution is false. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes joben1's post
01-03-2015, 06:00 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(01-03-2015 05:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Read my signature.

Read my Bible.

(01-03-2015 05:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Consciousness emerges from nothing every time a new human comes into existence. We develop from a single unconscious cell to become a conscious human being.

Um, the parents of the newly conscious human being are...conscious.

(01-03-2015 05:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please define 'kind' or stop using it as if it means something.

Please stop your red herrings and focus on the fact that I told you to use whatever biological term you want to distinguish the difference between a dog and a turtle...the same way you use the biological term in this context is the same way I use "kind".

If that isn't good enough for you, then I can't help you.

(01-03-2015 05:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Why do you think that many small changes can't add up to large changes?

Because I need evidence that it does. I am not going to go by what guys in white lab coats (who are all probably MOSTLY naturalists) tell me.

(01-03-2015 05:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  The differences in DNA between, to use your example, cats and dogs is quite small. They are very closely related. We have fossil evidence as well as the DNA that shows they are descended from a common ancestor.

Your theory is common ancestor...my theory is COMMON DESIGNER. The gas focus and the electric focus look the same...that doesn't mean they evolved from a gm plant 400 million years ago...that mean that they have a common DESIGNER. The same guy designed both vehicles.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: