Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 11:06 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-03-2015 08:56 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, included in the theory is the notion that long ago, when no one was around to see it, animals were having reptile to bird kinds of transformations.

(24-03-2015 12:20 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  This is in no way what the theory is saying or about.

I said "including in the theory is the notion that long ago, when no one was around to see it, ainmals were having reptile to bird kinds of transformations".

In response to this, you said "this is no way what the theory is saying or about".

Yet, evolutionists believe that reptiles evolved into birds? Consider Makes no sense whatsoever.

Your inability to see how this happens does not negate the evidence that it did happen.

Quote:
(24-03-2015 12:20 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Again, this is in no way what the theory is saying or about. You, perhaps, might want to actually look into reading about the theory?

Man, it never fails. It never ever fails. Every single time a person expresses doubt about the ToE or questions it, they always get accused of being ignorant of the theory. It never fails. "You just don't know what evolution means", or, "Thats not what evolutionists is"...as if they are so smart, and we are so dumb.

We are knowledgeable, you are ignorant. Your ignorance arises from your refusal to look at actual evidence.

Quote:I will put it to you this way, Peebo, whatever the theory is regarding the macro stuff, I don't believe it. So any conceivable theory that evolves macroevolution, I don't believe it...so that covers pretty much everything, right?

You don't believe it because you refuse to actually think about it or consider the evidence for it.
Please explain how cumulative small changes don't result in large changes. Explain what limits there are.

Quote:
(24-03-2015 12:20 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  So... what then do you say the bone/shell/etc shaped rocks are? Consider

Nothing at all.

Really? They are imagined?

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
24-03-2015, 11:19 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2015 11:39 AM by Russ.)
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 11:06 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 12:20 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Again, this is in no way what the theory is saying or about. You, perhaps, might want to actually look into reading about the theory?

Man, it never fails. It never ever fails. Every single time a person expresses doubt about the ToE or questions it, they always get accused of being ignorant of the theory. It never fails. "You just don't know what evolution means", or, "Thats not what evolutionists is"...as if they are so smart, and we are so dumb.

I will put it to you this way, Peebo, whatever the theory is regarding the macro stuff, I don't believe it. So any conceivable theory that evolves macroevolution, I don't believe it...so that covers pretty much everything, right?
You just demonstrated that you still don't understand evolution. Macro evolution works on the same principles as micro evolution, just on a larger scale.
You can read more about it on Berkley's nifty webpage
Understanding Evolution
(EDIT: fixed grammer mistake)

(30-03-2015 08:47 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  IT'S THE HOLY GHOST oooOOOOOOOOOOooooooo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Russ's post
24-03-2015, 11:30 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2015 11:50 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 11:06 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will put it to you this way, Peebo, whatever the theory is regarding the macro stuff, I don't believe it. So any conceivable theory that evolves macroevolution, I don't believe it...so that covers pretty much everything, right?

word salad, the only difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is time, which is why evolutionists and scientists, you know..those guys educated in this field, do not refer to it as macro or micro, it is just evolution.

When it comes to evolution my ineducable tyro buddy, the most controversial part of the evolutionary theory is natural selection. This is due to design in nature by a natural mechanical process that does not require supernatural, creation stories to explain its existence. This is controversial because those that subscribe to fabricated fairytales and invalid delusional supernatural transcendental belief systems do not like when you muddy the water with facts, reason, logic and empirical evidence. These people posit intelligent design as the answer, which is a religious argument lacking empirical support and offers no tenable hypothesis.

All one has to do is point to vestigial organs and disprove the creationism myth. For example; wings of an ostrich, the human appendix which was very important to our ancestors who primarily ate vegetation but is of no use to us now, and the human coccyx. These are all vestigial traits which only makes sense to consider evolution as the cause. Another oddity is atavisms; an anomaly which appears to be the reoccurrence of an ancient ancestral trait. A human baby born with a tail, or a horse born with extra toes. They differ from vestigial traits because they rarely occur, rather than be present in every individual.

If we were created, by some anthropocentric, Abrahamic based version of a God for example, why would we have these ancestral traits which reflect our mutation as a species from another species over a very long period of time. If we were created from a handful of dirt, or so the fairytale goes, why would we have the remnants of a tail inside of our body, and a fishlike circulatory system? Why would we have gill arch structures in our embryonic structure during our early development stages? To me, yet again, this indicates that we are exactly what evolutionary scientist have proclaimed, a successful mutation of Homo sapiens species over a very long period of time. It is fascinating to understand that as one species evolves into another, the new specie has inherited the genetic developmental programming of its ancestor, and this has been proven over and over.

The ample evidence of bad design refutes, yet again, the ridiculous posit of an intelligent designer. If we were created, we would not have so many imperfections. These imperfections are the mark of evolution and are exactly what we would expect to happen. The recurrent Laryngeal nerve of mammals is a good example of this. In mammals, this nerve avoids the direct route between brain and throat and instead descends into the chest, loops around the aorta near the heart, then returns to the larynx. That makes it seven times longer than it needs to be. Another nail in the coffin for the fairytale, fabricated, anthropocentric concept of a creator.

Whenever a creationist like COTW has been asked to offer a credible explanation on why different types of animals have similar forms in distinctly different places, their only answer is the GODDIDIT excuse. Unfortunately COTW, convergent evolution explains this very well. Species that live in similar habitats will have experienced the same environmental stressors, and thus evolve with similar genetic adaptations. When we perform archaeological digs in one area we should find direct descendents of earlier species that lived in this area, to no surprise this is what we find. Yet again, another nail in the coffin of creationism.

Creationism would have to propose that there had occurred an endless number of successive creations and extinctions worldwide, and each set of newly created species were made to look like older ones that lived in the same area. This is about as plausible as the ridiculous Noah’s Ark story which was based on the epic of Gilgamesh myth. Perhaps it is time we discard the chicken bones, tea leaves and fairytales and accept the real, tangible, empirical evidence at hand.

That smack down was free of charge, print that shit out, hang it above your computer, teach your kids, share it with your peers, no need to thank me, it is what I do.

"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
[+] 6 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
24-03-2015, 11:55 AM
RE: Question about flood
(23-03-2015 08:35 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  I like your posts and I agree with you on Wild however I probably wouldn't sit down and have beer with him. One, I can't stand beer and two, I'm not fond of banging my head against walls. Gives me a headache. We'd have to keep our conversation confined to two subjects, sports and knitting.

Too bad about not liking beer. I love the taste of beer. I just don't like alcohol. Sometimes I drink a non-alcoholic beer. Not as good, but still good.

I don't get riled or upset talking to people who are so completely divorced from reality that they clearly don't have a clue. I get extremely upset by people whose irrational beliefs cause real damage to others. Anti-vaxers, for example. They belong in prison. But the truly mentally ill, well, I like them, as long as they're not violent.

(23-03-2015 08:35 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  People like Wild believe because they want to believe ...

That's it in a nutshell. Some people need to believe in fairy tales because the thought of their own mortality terrifies them. They have to believe they'll live forever or they could not function.

(23-03-2015 09:02 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You are in Dallas? ...

Dallas??? My profile says Spokane. I've always said Spokane. I just now looked out the window, and, yep, it looks to me like Spokane.

Note that I said I'd have a beer with you IF I still drank beer. So maybe we'll both have a soda. I'll pass on watching you use your stomach for a graveyard, however. I don't mind it if people use their stomaches for graveyards. That's entirely their own business. I just prefer not to watch. Kind of like really ugly people going naked. I fully support the right of anybody who wants to, to go naked. I just won't look at the ugly ones. So, by all means, enjoy that steak. But I won't join you while you're eating it. Feel free to PM me if you're ever in Spokane, and if I'm in town we can get together for a friendly chat.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2015, 11:57 AM
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 11:30 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  ... my ineducable tyro buddy ...

Guys like Q and COTW are here, as they look at it, to teach us. They are not here to learn. Anything. Any attempt to school them will only be bent into another prosyletwist to advance what is hardened concrete in their mind.

This isn't to say the endless attempts aren't futile. Q and COTW are only 2 of a much larger audience. I would just make it more plain that it's the larger audience being addressed, and if it can be done in such a manner that Q and COTW are not even acknowledged or responded to directly, so much the better. Direct discussion with that duo is the same as trying to lift a boat anchor out of the mud by speaking to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Airportkid's post
24-03-2015, 12:06 PM
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 11:57 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 11:30 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  ... my ineducable tyro buddy ...

Guys like Q and COTW are here, as they look at it, to teach us. They are not here to learn. Anything. Any attempt to school them will only be bent into another prosyletwist to advance what is hardened concrete in their mind.

This isn't to say the endless attempts aren't futile. Q and COTW are only 2 of a much larger audience. I would just make it more plain that it's the larger audience being addressed, and if it can be done in such a manner that Q and COTW are not even acknowledged or responded to directly, so much the better. Direct discussion with that duo is the same as trying to lift a boat anchor out of the mud by speaking to it.

very true, and the vast majority of the time my intent is to provide my perspective to the lurkers, and those who value the information perhaps to use in their future endeavors of the endless battle against misinformation called religion. Rare is the occasion sadly to truly enter a debate...or intellectual discourse with someone with an opposing view AND the willingness to truly consider the information or opinion presented by their opponent. That is the sign of one who wishes to learn, and not just loudly express their close minded views on a given subject. I have learned much from my past debates with intelligent, educated in theology believers, and I hope they did as well. Unfortunately we have better odds that bigfoot visits our forum than one of those...outside of perhaps a couple of long term residents here like KC.

"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
24-03-2015, 03:46 PM
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 11:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your inability to see how this happens does not negate the evidence that it did happen.

Evidence, what evidence?

(24-03-2015 11:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  We are knowledgeable, you are ignorant. Your ignorance arises from your refusal to look at actual evidence.

Again, evidence? What evidence?

(24-03-2015 11:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  You don't believe it because you refuse to actually think about it or consider the evidence for it.
Please explain how cumulative small changes don't result in large changes.

Explain what limits there are.

Well, judging by the fact that there is a dog "kind" out there in the animal kingdom, and all I see is dogs producing what they are, not what they aren't...I will say that the limits are within the "kind".

Kind= dog kind...cat kind...fish kind...bear kind...snake kind, etc.

I have no reason to believe that the animals of yesterday were able to do the things that the animals of today have not been observed to do. Now, you can believe that they did, but admit that you accept this by faith. You've never seen such transformations, and you have no experiment that you can conduct that will lead you to conclude that macroevolution is a 100% brute fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2015, 03:50 PM
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 11:19 AM)Russ Wrote:  You just demonstrated that you still don't understand evolution. Macro evolution works on the same principles as micro evolution, just on a larger scale.

That is what your fingertips are telling me. I am asking for observational and experimental evidence for the theory. You defining what macroevolution is, is not the same as providing evidence for the theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 03:46 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 11:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your inability to see how this happens does not negate the evidence that it did happen.

Evidence, what evidence?

(24-03-2015 11:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  We are knowledgeable, you are ignorant. Your ignorance arises from your refusal to look at actual evidence.

Again, evidence? What evidence?

(24-03-2015 11:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  You don't believe it because you refuse to actually think about it or consider the evidence for it.
Please explain how cumulative small changes don't result in large changes.

Explain what limits there are.

Well, judging by the fact that there is a dog "kind" out there in the animal kingdom, and all I see is dogs producing what they are, not what they aren't...I will say that the limits are within the "kind".

Kind= dog kind...cat kind...fish kind...bear kind...snake kind, etc.

I have no reason to believe that the animals of yesterday were able to do the things that the animals of today have not been observed to do. Now, you can believe that they did, but admit that you accept this by faith. You've never seen such transformations, and you have no experiment that you can conduct that will lead you to conclude that macroevolution is a 100% brute fact.

There is no actual definition of 'kind'. Do you wish to present one?

Please answer the question: Explain what limits there are to accumulation of changes.

The difference in DNA between species is quite small. Generational changes to DNA accumulate (or are eliminated) and there is no limit to the change.

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
24-03-2015, 03:58 PM
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 11:55 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Dallas??? My profile says Spokane. I've always said Spokane. I just now looked out the window, and, yep, it looks to me like Spokane.

I don't know where the hell I got Dallas from. Spokane? Don't matter, I have an uncle that lives in Seattle. I remember when I was a young buck, me and the fam went out to visit him...via Greyhound...and we traveled right through Spokane. That entire trip was a good experience.

(24-03-2015 11:55 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Note that I said I'd have a beer with you IF I still drank beer.

And note that if I drank beer at all, and if you still drank beer, we could have a few beers.

(24-03-2015 11:55 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  So maybe we'll both have a soda. I'll pass on watching you use your stomach for a graveyard, however. I don't mind it if people use their stomaches for graveyards. That's entirely their own business. I just prefer not to watch. Kind of like really ugly people going naked. I fully support the right of anybody who wants to, to go naked. I just won't look at the ugly ones. So, by all means, enjoy that steak. But I won't join you while you're eating it.

You just took the whole steak thing and created a big monster out of it, didn't you?

(24-03-2015 11:55 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Feel free to PM me if you're ever in Spokane, and if I'm in town we can get together for a friendly chat.

Cool. Maybe we will run in to John Stockton.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: