Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2015, 03:58 PM
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 03:50 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.

Real-time observation is not the only kind of evidence. The fossil record and DNA are evidence of evolution.
That you refuse to understand that does not change the truth of it, it just makes you look like an ignoramus.

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, 08:00 PM
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 03:50 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.
May I suggest this article over at the Scientific American? It talks about plants and animals where speciation has been observed.

(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
25-03-2015, 08:20 AM
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 08:00 PM)Russ Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 03:50 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  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.
May I suggest this article over at the Scientific American? It talks about plants and animals where speciation has been observed.

Yabut, that's not the kind of thing he's talking about. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
25-03-2015, 10:18 AM
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 03:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Real-time observation is not the only kind of evidence. The fossil record and DNA are evidence of evolution.

Ok, so since we don't have real-time observations, what do we rely on? Fossil records and DNA evidence? No transitional fossils have been found, which is something we would expect to find since so many animals would have died off in their transitional forms. What we find is animals in their full, final stage forms...no transitional fossils whatsoever...hmmm Consider

Second, DNA similarites could very well imply COMMON DESIGNER. DNA is a code, and the same guy is responsible for the "software" inside every living organism. You can't rule out that possibility, nor can you use Occams Razor, because I am not too sure that naturalism is the simplier explanation of the two, based on the background information I have from other areas.

(24-03-2015 03:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  That you refuse to understand that does not change the truth of it, it just makes you look like an ignoramus.

Understanding and accepting are two different things, Chas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: Question about flood
(25-03-2015 10:18 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 03:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Real-time observation is not the only kind of evidence. The fossil record and DNA are evidence of evolution.

Ok, so since we don't have real-time observations, what do we rely on? Fossil records and DNA evidence? No transitional fossils have been found, which is something we would expect to find since so many animals would have died off in their transitional forms. What we find is animals in their full, final stage forms...no transitional fossils whatsoever...hmmm Consider

Every animal that has ever lived is a transitional form.

Quote:Second, DNA similarites could very well imply COMMON DESIGNER. DNA is a code, and the same guy is responsible for the "software" inside every living organism. You can't rule out that possibility, nor can you use Occams Razor, because I am not too sure that naturalism is the simplier explanation of the two, based on the background information I have from other areas.

Occam's razor applies since the blind, algorithmic process of evolution is far simpler than an intelligent designer.

Quote:
(24-03-2015 03:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  That you refuse to understand that does not change the truth of it, it just makes you look like an ignoramus.

Understanding and accepting are two different things, Chas.

But you have yet to understand.

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
25-03-2015, 10:54 AM
RE: Question about flood
(25-03-2015 10:18 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 03:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Real-time observation is not the only kind of evidence. The fossil record and DNA are evidence of evolution.

Ok, so since we don't have real-time observations, what do we rely on? Fossil records and DNA evidence? No transitional fossils have been found, which is something we would expect to find since so many animals would have died off in their transitional forms. What we find is animals in their full, final stage forms...no transitional fossils whatsoever...hmmm Consider

Second, DNA similarites could very well imply COMMON DESIGNER. DNA is a code, and the same guy is responsible for the "software" inside every living organism. You can't rule out that possibility, nor can you use Occams Razor, because I am not too sure that naturalism is the simplier explanation of the two, based on the background information I have from other areas.

(24-03-2015 03:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  That you refuse to understand that does not change the truth of it, it just makes you look like an ignoramus.

Understanding and accepting are two different things, Chas.

You sir, COW, are a completely simple- minded human being that just cannot think outside of your mental condition you suffer from. Every animal or plant, living or fossil, is a transitional form you dolt. If you educate yourself, and not just dismiss what you don't comprehend, you will realize that there are numerous fossilized creatures which clearly exhibit characteristics of their ancestors, along with generations after they lived and died. If you think a lizard gave birth to a sparrow at some time, then you are hopeless and stupid in regards to science. You would be ignorant but since you have been told how it works, and asked to research how it works, hence you are now stupid.

Think of it as languages and not animals - do you think that a Latin speaking woman just gave birth to an Italian speaking child one glorious morning in the past? that is right - NO! The Italian language morphed and formed over time into what is spoken in Italy today. Now please educate yourself and don't stop thinking and asking right at that first mental block of "don't make sense to me cuz I don't see it happen".

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Timber1025's post
25-03-2015, 11:31 AM
RE: Question about flood
(25-03-2015 10:18 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  What we find is animals in their full, final stage forms...no transitional fossils whatsoever...hmmm Consider

Every animal IS in its full, final stage for that individual. It is simultaneously a transitional form between what its ancestors were and what its descendents will become.

Have you ever watched a morph where one image gradually changes into another? Every frame of the morph is a complete, stand-alone image. The difference between any one frame and the ones immediately adjacent to it are negligible. The difference between the earliest frames and the final frames can be drastic.

That's what we see when we look at the fossil record. Each fossil corresponds to a single frame of the morph. It is a "full, final stage" just like the morph frame is a complete image. The descendents of that animal were slightly different than the parent just like the morph frames are slightly different from each other.

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
25-03-2015, 12:01 PM
RE: Question about flood
(23-03-2015 04:42 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Please provide a detailed argument as to WHY none of these books are right and yours is.

Well, the case for the Resurrection, for starters.

This is not evidence. I am not holding you to any other standard than one I would hold to a person who tells me that the sirens are real because Homer spoke of them. This is not evidence, if you have any, please present it.

(23-03-2015 04:42 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Great, now follow your own statement and provide actual proof that the claims made in the gospels actually are true. You have no reason to believe that someone walked on water, or raised a dead guy, or made the blind see without modern techniques. You have literally zero reason to believe any of these things so by your own statement, they shouldn't be believed.

As I said before, I believe in miracles based on independent arguments for the existence of God...and if these arguments are true, then walking on water, or raising a dead guy, etc...an omnipotent Being doesn't even break a sweat doing these things.

So what are they? I have heard many and the arguments basically have been, "It's in the bible", or "I have faith". How do you establish that there is this deity that you claim in the first place? And the "bible says so" is about as credible as reading an autobiography of Donald Trump and believing it without question. What INDEPENDENT evidence do you have that even establishes a higher power?

(23-03-2015 04:42 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  So which is more likely: that nature did something or that magic was involved? How often has anything in history NOT turned out to have a natural explanation?

Inanimate matter coming to life <------how is this NOT magic?

If by animate, you mean motion, then by definition, anything above absolute zero has molecular motion and therefore is not inanimate. If you mean intelligence, there are explanations around here is a nuts-and-bolts synopsys complete with some references should you chose to learn more of why they say it. This is by no means an exhaustive list.

(23-03-2015 04:42 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Edit: Also, you would NOT accept it if he had said "nature did it" without any explanation so why should we accept it if you say "god did it"?

Based on the rationale of the arguments that are presented FOR the existence of God. If you know anyone that refuted any of these arguments, then give me the post #.

You make the claims, you actually prove them. Nice try to shift the burden of proof. I can play by those rules using the WLC method of an ironclad argument (If premise 1 and 2 are true, then premise 3 MUST be true).
Premise 1) All gays are men.
Premise 2) CotW is a man.
Premise 3) CotW is gay.

Now it is up to YOU to prove it wrong. You can deny it all you like but without actual proof (and even closeted gays have gotten married) we have this irrefutable argument that you like men. Oh and to answer your question about refuted arguments, you may want to, I don't know, reread your own thread where all of your arguments are actually taken apart. It's not my fault you chose to ignore what they said to you or for that matter, even bothered to read up on what you were saying.

(23-03-2015 04:42 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  If he did say nature did it you couldn't WAIT to ask him for the evidence of how it happened and would take any issue with it because it affects your worldview yet you bitch and dodge when we ask you the same thing.

Um, dude...first of all, I've been presenting and defending at least 5 arguments for the existence of God...and I became a member of the forum to do just that...so the idea that I am "bitching and dodging when you ask me the same thing" is utterly false.

See above answer. You are bitching and dodging, although dodging WAY more than bitching, I will give you that.

(23-03-2015 04:42 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  If nature did it, it is totally prudent to ask HOW. If god did it, it is also prudent to ask HOW!!

Well, ask HOW then. If you ask me how, I will say I don't know...but my arguments are not basing on the knowledge of HOW God did it, it is based on the fact that God HAD to have done it because it couldn't have been otherwise.

This is still a "I don't know, therefore god did it" response. You do not seem to understand the implication if we do find a how. If we ever do figure out the HOW, that takes god completely out of it just like us understanding lightning and thunder took god out of the equation when a person is struck while under a tree during a thunderstorm. If we can do it and can explain it, that means that there is no reason to assume a supernatural cause. And just because we do not understand something yet does not mean that we never will.

(23-03-2015 04:42 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  If you say god did it and we ask how, all we typically get back is, "well I have faith" or "the bible says so" or some garbage like that (this is not just from you). Neither of these answers is an explanation, they are a cop-out. Jeez. At least Q TRIES to explain himself.

You, my friend, are living in the past. Christians don't talk like that anymore.

This is your own post from your own thread:

(08-02-2015 12:55 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 12:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  What is the extra-Biblical evidence for the resurrection?

Why assume that we need extra-Biblical evidence?

You do it yourself!!!! Facepalm

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
25-03-2015, 12:31 PM
RE: Question about flood
(24-03-2015 11:57 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  ... 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.

Cool to see you on here Airportkid. I just recently joined this site. You know me as daniel from a certain chat board devoted to a certain hybrid car.

The people I'm most thinking about when I join threads like this (and I know there are a lot of such people) are atheists in conservative religious families or communities that feel isolated and alone, constantly bombarded by the sort of nonsense the creationists spout here. By answering those claims here, even though we'll never convince the creationists, we show the closeted and isolated atheists that they are not alone, and that the arguments they hear from their families are indeed nonsense.

(24-03-2015 03:50 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ... You just took the whole steak thing and created a big monster out of it, didn't you?

What makes you say that? I have no objection to you eating meat. I just figure that if you're going to use your stomach the way graveyards are commonly used, I'd prefer not to watch. I have lots of friends who do the same as you, and I don't watch them eating either.

"Monstrous" would be an "intelligent" creator who designed a world in which children starve to death from famines caused by drought, and baby ducks are torn apart and eaten alive by wolves, and men's urethra goes through the middle of the prostate, instead of around it, so that it eventually squeezes off the flow and men die in horrible agony from not being able to pee. That would be monstrous. You eating the flesh of a cow who was killed in spite of never having hurt anyone is not monstrous at all. That's just a tiny cruelty that's insignificant compared with all the cruelty of this cruel, heartless world. I really mean it when I say enjoy your steak. And I make no claims to being better than anyone else. I have plenty of bad habits, maybe even some that you would find appalling. No judgement from me. Just a preference not to watch folks using their stomach for graveyards.

"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
25-03-2015, 01:01 PM
RE: Question about flood
(25-03-2015 12:31 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Just a preference not to watch folks using their stomach for graveyards.

No judgement? The above gives lie to that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: