I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2015, 02:38 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 01:58 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 01:15 PM)Job_1207 Wrote:  Yeah, thanks. What do the homologous and vestigial body parts prove? They prove whatever you want to believe.

No Zaphod, that would be your uneducated special pleading spin on the data.


(09-02-2015 01:15 PM)‘Job_1207’ pid=‘733262’ Wrote:I see it this way:

Write a fucking paper on it, have it peered reviewed by actual scientists versed on the topic, then after it passes muster do come and tell us how you see things because up until that point your opinions on evolution are nothing more that piss-poor critiques on the lifetime works of scientists on the cutting edge of human knowledge.

You come here all full of yourself thinking you have all these important revelations and inside information on how things actually work. That you don’t know enough to even make a coherent argument presenting your “way” of seeing it confirms for me of your deluded and over-inflated perception of what you actually do know which, is to say, not much at all.

Run along and go earn yourself a biology degree or two then maybe you’d realize that countering widely held and supported scientific views takes a wee bit more than coming to this forum and saying, “Hey, look at me, I have no background in what I’m talking about, but I believe it with all my heart so it must be true even though I hold not one degree on the topic, I feel I can discuss it because, well...God.”

Cretin.
My friend, what can your beloved "biologists" with two of three biology degrees each tell me more than the animals themselves? They don't understand animal behavior themselves! Why would I go to them to "teach" me?
Have you ever seen Dr. Richard Dawkins try to explain the origin of the eye? He did it in a book, too. It was absolutely ridiculous watching his explain the transition between one tenth of an eye to a quarter of an eye to half an eye to whatever!
How the hell did those skin cells that suddenly became sensible to light get connected to the brain of the animal? Nerves simply grew out of them randomly in all directions and somehow they found their way to the brain and they plugged themselves in? And Mr. Dawkins is the "leading" biologist in the New-Darwinian evolutionary movement. Are you kidding me?
In one documentary, he presented the weird behavior of a parasitic wasp (which lays her eggs inside larvae that she paralyzes) and the argument he brought was that it seemed cruel? "What kind of God would create such an insect?" he asked, reverberating the same question Darwin had asked. But the fact that the wasp did everything out of "instinct" without being taught by anybody (including finding the host by following the pheromones secreted by the plant on which those larvae feed) didn't seem odd to Mr. Dawkins. If he can't see the obvious in that instance, what else can I expect from him?

Furthermore, how many documentaries narrated by David Attenborough have you watched? If you get a dime for each time he says the words "amazing behavior" or "spectacular adaptation," you'll be able to buy a car. He has a series of BBC films called Life, which include many episodes specifically about weird behavior, and to him this is proof for evolution! Every single one of those animals was amazing and the behavior of any one of them would have been enough to make you wonder about "evolution."
What? Do you want me to actually name the animals that can teach you and your cohort of so called biologists the truth about God and evolution? Cause I can do that. But, of course, you would only see "amazing behavior" or "spectacular adaptation," supporting your stupid theory, because your brain has preprogrammed your thinking to do that thing only and nothing else. I'm sorry to say, you will never be able to see the truth.

It doesn't matter what I believe; all that matters is what I can prove!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 02:40 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
At work but I would like to reply to at least some of the above later/when I get time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:12 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 02:00 PM)unfogged Wrote:  For anybody who missed it, and who has a strong stomach, this guy has been posting over in another thread starting here.

Wow, you are a bold one. As much as you were getting intellectually spanked in that thread, I'm surprised you want people to see it. Some people are so brave.

Laughat

I have no problem with anybody seeing how vacuous your claims are. If anything I said was wrong I will gladly accept correction from anybody who can demonstrate that. Your assertions there are worthless.

Quote:
(08-02-2015 02:00 PM)unfogged Wrote:  It is all argument from personal incredulity and god of the gaps.

My god of the gaps to counter your nature of the gaps.

You still fail to grasp the difference between "I don't know, the only evidence we have points to natural explanations but we don't have an answer yet" and "God did it". The first is intellectually honest. The latter is not.

Quote:
(08-02-2015 02:00 PM)unfogged Wrote:  What do you think constitutes sufficient evidence to accept that Jesus was resurrected?

Sufficient historical evidence that supports the fact that Jesus' disciples (including Paul and James) honestly/geniuinely/sincerely believed that they saw him post-mortem, which is what I think we have.

Paul claims only to have seen a vision, not a physical being. The stories about the disciples seeing Jesus post-mortem can't be traced back further than 30+ years after the events, are contradictory, and make much more sense when read as fan fiction than history. You shouldn't believe everything you read.

Even if I accepted that there was a Jesus and disciples and that they honestly thought they saw him living after they saw him killed it would not be proof that it happened. Do you believe other accounts of similar events?

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
09-02-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:38 PM)Job_1207 Wrote:  Have you ever seen Dr. Richard Dawkins try to explain the origin of the eye? He did it in a book, too. It was absolutely ridiculous watching his explain the transition between one tenth of an eye to a quarter of an eye to half an eye to whatever!
How the hell did those skin cells that suddenly became sensible to light get connected to the brain of the animal? Nerves simply grew out of them randomly in all directions and somehow they found their way to the brain and they plugged themselves in?

Thanks for your god of the gaps argument. Lacking an education you NEED to fill in "gawd" wherever and whenever you NEED to do so. Are you really as uneducated as you sound ? It's "sensitive", not "sensible", dear. Now run out and play.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-02-2015, 02:45 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 02:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Just a further demonstration that he has no clue what he's talking about. No Biologist or life science person talks about a "life force".

I believe in a immaterial soul, which is in fact a force...so as I said, I was letting my theological position creep in to that one...but it doesn't matter, because as I've mentioned earlier, you can take the "force" part out and you are no closer to producing life in a lab, contrary to any bs videos you post.

Calling a video made by a Nobel winner "bs" simply demonstrates your bankrupt intellectual position, and demonstrates to all you are totally incapable of addressing any of the chemistry involved, and thus thus your complete ignorance of the entire enterprise. I thought you said you were here to "debate", not shit all over.

Loser.

Jebus is Lard.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-02-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:38 PM)Job_1207 Wrote:  My friend, what can your beloved "biologists" with two of three biology degrees each tell me more than the animals themselves? They don't understand animal behavior themselves! Why would I go to them to “teach” me?

It’s obvious to everyone here but you. You wallow in your ignorance.
Prancing around all prideful about NOT having an education...I’ve heard everything now. Facepalm

(09-02-2015 02:38 PM)Job_1207 Wrote:  I'm sorry to say, you will never be able to see the truth.

The irony burns hot in this one.

I may have to change your name from Zaphod to Dr. Doolittle. Consider

“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
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
09-02-2015, 02:55 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2015 02:59 PM by Kaepora Gaebora.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:38 PM)Job_1207 Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 01:58 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  No Zaphod, that would be your uneducated special pleading spin on the data.



Write a fucking paper on it, have it peered reviewed by actual scientists versed on the topic, then after it passes muster do come and tell us how you see things because up until that point your opinions on evolution are nothing more that piss-poor critiques on the lifetime works of scientists on the cutting edge of human knowledge.

You come here all full of yourself thinking you have all these important revelations and inside information on how things actually work. That you don’t know enough to even make a coherent argument presenting your “way” of seeing it confirms for me of your deluded and over-inflated perception of what you actually do know which, is to say, not much at all.

Run along and go earn yourself a biology degree or two then maybe you’d realize that countering widely held and supported scientific views takes a wee bit more than coming to this forum and saying, “Hey, look at me, I have no background in what I’m talking about, but I believe it with all my heart so it must be true even though I hold not one degree on the topic, I feel I can discuss it because, well...God.”

Cretin.
My friend, what can your beloved "biologists" with two of three biology degrees each tell me more than the animals themselves? They don't understand animal behavior themselves! Why would I go to them to "teach" me?

So you're trying to claim you are smarter or as smart as the biologists who are devoted to studying organisms? Ego much?

Quote:Have you ever seen Dr. Richard Dawkins try to explain the origin of the eye? He did it in a book, too. It was absolutely ridiculous watching his explain the transition between one tenth of an eye to a quarter of an eye to half an eye to whatever!
How the hell did those skin cells that suddenly became sensible to light get connected to the brain of the animal? Nerves simply grew out of them randomly in all directions and somehow they found their way to the brain and they plugged themselves in? And Mr. Dawkins is the "leading" biologist in the New-Darwinian evolutionary movement. Are you kidding me?

So you don't understand what he was presenting and hid behind your ignorant creationist ideas. Cool.

What he was explaining that you chose to ignore was that mutations happen over generations, and these mutations are selected if they benefit or merely do not harm the species ability to survive long enough to reproduce. Mutations of key cells allowed photo-sensitive cells to develop, and since it can clearly help survival (or at least not harm it), the groups of organisms possessing that trait survived to pass it over generations. This cycle kept going, refining it to the eye we know today.

Ever wondered why panda bears are going extinct? Their biology is wired to favor bamboo, but to fuel such a hunk of fat and muscle that is the panda, they have to eat a TON of it. This, clearly, is not working out for them.

And there isn't such a thing as 'new-Darwinism' that is used in the field. What you're trying to reference here is called evolutionary biology. Neo-Darwinism is an attempt at a pejorative that tries to associate evolution with Social Darwinism (nothing related to Darwin's work in evolution, actually) and the Nazi movement.

Quote:
In one documentary, he presented the weird behavior of a parasitic wasp (which lays her eggs inside larvae that she paralyzes) and the argument he brought was that it seemed cruel? "What kind of God would create such an insect?" he asked, reverberating the same question Darwin had asked. But the fact that the wasp did everything out of "instinct" without being taught by anybody (including finding the host by following the pheromones secreted by the plant on which those larvae feed) didn't seem odd to Mr. Dawkins. If he can't see the obvious in that instance, what else can I expect from him?

You're avoiding the point: why would a loving god create such a cruel parasite that would do that?

Quote:Furthermore, how many documentaries narrated by David Attenborough have you watched? If you get a dime for each time he says the words "amazing behavior" or "spectacular adaptation," you'll be able to buy a car. He has a series of BBC films called Life, which include many episodes specifically about weird behavior, and to him this is proof for evolution! Every single one of those animals was amazing and the behavior of any one of them would have been enough to make you wonder about "evolution."
What? Do you want me to actually name the animals that can teach you and your cohort of so called biologists the truth about God and evolution? Cause I can do that. But, of course, you would only see "amazing behavior" or "spectacular adaptation," supporting your stupid theory, because your brain has preprogrammed your thinking to do that thing only and nothing else. I'm sorry to say, you will never be able to see the truth.

Ya know, admiration of nature isn't being used to support evolution, but it is used to motivate scientists to find out HOW nature works. Compare that to admiring nature and automatically coming to the conclusion that this couldn't happen by chance, therefore God. Wedging god as an explanation does nothing to help explain how it happens and wields no predictive power.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Kaepora Gaebora's post
09-02-2015, 02:56 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I believe in a immaterial soul, which is in fact a force...so as I said, I was letting my theological position creep in to that one...but it doesn't matter, because as I've mentioned earlier, you can take the "force" part out and you are no closer to producing life in a lab, contrary to any bs videos you post.

Closer than you think. You're not formally trained in this area are you.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
09-02-2015, 02:59 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:38 PM)Job_1207 Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 01:58 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  No Zaphod, that would be your uneducated special pleading spin on the data.



Write a fucking paper on it, have it peered reviewed by actual scientists versed on the topic, then after it passes muster do come and tell us how you see things because up until that point your opinions on evolution are nothing more that piss-poor critiques on the lifetime works of scientists on the cutting edge of human knowledge.

You come here all full of yourself thinking you have all these important revelations and inside information on how things actually work. That you don’t know enough to even make a coherent argument presenting your “way” of seeing it confirms for me of your deluded and over-inflated perception of what you actually do know which, is to say, not much at all.

Run along and go earn yourself a biology degree or two then maybe you’d realize that countering widely held and supported scientific views takes a wee bit more than coming to this forum and saying, “Hey, look at me, I have no background in what I’m talking about, but I believe it with all my heart so it must be true even though I hold not one degree on the topic, I feel I can discuss it because, well...God.”

Cretin.
My friend, what can your beloved "biologists" with two of three biology degrees each tell me more than the animals themselves? They don't understand animal behavior themselves! Why would I go to them to "teach" me?
Have you ever seen Dr. Richard Dawkins try to explain the origin of the eye? He did it in a book, too. It was absolutely ridiculous watching his explain the transition between one tenth of an eye to a quarter of an eye to half an eye to whatever!
How the hell did those skin cells that suddenly became sensible to light get connected to the brain of the animal? Nerves simply grew out of them randomly in all directions and somehow they found their way to the brain and they plugged themselves in? And Mr. Dawkins is the "leading" biologist in the New-Darwinian evolutionary movement. Are you kidding me?
In one documentary, he presented the weird behavior of a parasitic wasp (which lays her eggs inside larvae that she paralyzes) and the argument he brought was that it seemed cruel? "What kind of God would create such an insect?" he asked, reverberating the same question Darwin had asked. But the fact that the wasp did everything out of "instinct" without being taught by anybody (including finding the host by following the pheromones secreted by the plant on which those larvae feed) didn't seem odd to Mr. Dawkins. If he can't see the obvious in that instance, what else can I expect from him?

Furthermore, how many documentaries narrated by David Attenborough have you watched? If you get a dime for each time he says the words "amazing behavior" or "spectacular adaptation," you'll be able to buy a car. He has a series of BBC films called Life, which include many episodes specifically about weird behavior, and to him this is proof for evolution! Every single one of those animals was amazing and the behavior of any one of them would have been enough to make you wonder about "evolution."
What? Do you want me to actually name the animals that can teach you and your cohort of so called biologists the truth about God and evolution? Cause I can do that. But, of course, you would only see "amazing behavior" or "spectacular adaptation," supporting your stupid theory, because your brain has preprogrammed your thinking to do that thing only and nothing else. I'm sorry to say, you will never be able to see the truth.

Magic done by your invisible friend sounds so much more plausible!
You can't see that's crazy because your brain has been pre-programmed by indoctrination to only be able to see magic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 03:02 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:38 PM)Job_1207 Wrote:  Have you ever seen Dr. Richard Dawkins try to explain the origin of the eye? He did it in a book, too. It was absolutely ridiculous watching his explain the transition between one tenth an eye to a quarter of an eye to half an eye to whatever!

Climbing Mount Improbable. For folks who'd like to give it a read, it's here.

Quote:How the hell did those skin cells that suddenly became sensible to light get connected to the brain of the animal? Nerves simply grew out of them randomly in all directions and somehow they found their way to the brain and they plugged themselves in?

You've obviously not understood the book - evolution takes many millions (hundreds of) years - nerves don't just 'grow randomly', because evolution is not random.

Quote:In one documentary, he presented the weird behavior of a parasitic wasp (which lays her eggs inside larvae that she paralyzes) and the argument he brought was that it seemed cruel? "What kind of God would create such an insect?"

He's asking why, if you believe in an all loving god, would such a creation take place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Helio's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: