Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-04-2015, 10:51 AM
RE: Question about flood
(01-04-2015 09:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2015 11:13 PM)morondog Wrote:  Ya know, CotW...

Look at you guys. Every time someone challenges your perfect Christianity you tremble. Now... every time you challenge say evolution... does that actually make a dent? Well, no, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. But if you *were* a legitimate, intelligent person who *knew* what evolution was and presented a compelling alternative theory do you know what would happen? *The experts would either update the theory of evolution incorporating your stuff too, or if necessary abandon the theory altogether*. Evolution would become a relic, possibly taught for history purposes as in "Haha, look at what we used to think before CotW's ground-breaking paper"...

Science succeeds in explaining things because science *changes* to fit what we know of the world. Religion fails because it's rigid. It only changes (very unwillingly) when society makes practices like homosexuality acceptable and religions start to lose members over their hardline attitudes.

Religion: "We know the truth, GOD himself told us".
Science: "We have an *idea* which seems to fit our experimental data".

Think about the difference. Can you honestly say that you welcome challenges to your faith, or is it just one more person to go "Lalalalala, I can't *heaaaaar* you" to?

Let me just enlighten you on what is going on here...not just on this forum, but in the world, on particularly this very subject.

Now atheists, of course, don't believe in God, correct? Now, if God is taken out of the equation, atheists would still need to provide an explanation of the origin of species, and the origin of life, too. See, on atheism, evolution is the ONLY game in town. It MUST have happened...in fact, that is the ONLY way it could have happened.

That is exactly why, despite no observational evidence, you people are so hell bent on believing it. Dude, there is no evidence for evolution..as I pointed out, evolution is the interpretation of the fact. No one has ever seen reptile-bird transformations, yet, conveniently, the theory is it happened so long ago that no one has ever saw it, nor will those that are alive today will ever be able to see it.

Dude, if you don't see the con involved in that, then I can't help you. Either someone is duping you, or you are duping yourself. Either way, you are being duped.

But getting back to the interpretation stuff...the same thing I told GWOG...when you find an fossil, two things happen..

1. You make the observation:You observe a fossil...you look at it, examine it...analyze it.

2. You make an interpretation: You conclude that this fossil is the evolutionary predecessor of a modern day organism/animal.

The difference is...one is a FACT...the other is an opinion, because when I look at a fossil, that is NOT what I interpret...now, we both may have our own reason for why we interpret the same thing differently...but both are interpretations, nonetheless.

The problem that evolutionists have is they want to make their interpretation part of the fact, but sorry, Charlie, that ain't how it works. Now sure, you can believe that reptiles evolved into birds, you can believe that whales were once land dwelling animals, and you can believe that we all share a common ancestor..but that is not science, because science is based on observation...experiment...and prediction...and macroevolution completely FAILS in all regards.

Observation: You may observe the fossils, but no human has ever observed a reptile-bird kind of transformation. They believe that this occurred millions of years ago (conveniently), but no one has ever seen it.

Experiment: No one has ever conducted an experiment that would get you those macro kind of results.

Prediction: No one can predict when the next "changes" will occur.

So basically, evolution isn't even science...it is a default theory that unbelievers must believe in to account for species.

Dude - you are a fucking idiot.

“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
01-04-2015, 10:57 AM
RE: Question about flood
(01-04-2015 09:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 09:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I did. Micro evolution is a fact. You know why? Because we can see it...we can experiment with it, and we may be able to make predictions, based on a selective breeding process.

That is science. Macro evolution, on the other hand...not so much.

Please explain how small changes can't add up to large changes.

[Image: its-magic-i-aint-gotta-explain-shit.jpg]

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
01-04-2015, 11:35 AM
RE: Question about flood
(01-04-2015 09:32 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 09:17 AM)Russ Wrote:  Seems like a valid question to me. If everything has a cause you can't just say god is a special case.

Actually, the premise isn't "everything has a cause"...the premise is "everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause."

I didn't make the distinction on purpose, because atheists always misrepresent the argument. It is a prime example of being so quick to attack that you fail to adequately read what was said.

What you said was not a misrepresentation used by atheists, it was just the regular cosmological argument. By adding 'BEGINS to exist' you changed it to the kalam cosmological argument. Which is just as silly.
Assuming you are a proponent of the kalam argument, you are saying (and correct me if I'm wrong)

A: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
B: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause (aka goddidit)

So, the universe has a cause, what caused it? You claim god. What caused god? you claim god did NOT have a beginning and has always existed.

Is god the only thing that has always existed? If so your point is moot, as you now have said "everything has a cause except god"
Nothing has been achieved by changing the phrasing, it's still special pleading.

(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
01-04-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: Question about flood
(01-04-2015 09:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now atheists, of course, don't believe in God, correct? Now, if God is taken out of the equation, atheists would still need to provide an explanation of the origin of species, and the origin of life, too.

No, actually we don't. Now, there must be an explanation of the origin of life, that's absolutely true, but we are not obligated to provide one just because we can see how woefully inadequate your proposed explanation is, nor does our lack of an explanation lend any credence to yours.

Quote:See, on atheism, evolution is the ONLY game in town. It MUST have happened...in fact, that is the ONLY way it could have happened.

Untrue. "On atheism," one could believe in any manner of supernatural causation proposed, just so long as that cause isn't god. Hell, I literally provided a secular explanation for all that that wasn't evolution earlier in this thread, when I said that I traveled back in time and created the universe; a time traveler could easily go back in time with samples of pre-existing life, and seed that life on the prebiotic Earth, creating a stable time loop. No god involved, no abiogenesis, and your assertion is clearly a false dichotomy.

Quote:That is exactly why, despite no observational evidence, you people are so hell bent on believing it.

It is because of the observed evidence, and the inferences one can reasonably draw from that, that we believe in it. Just shouting over and over that we have no evidence doesn't make it vanish, dude.

Quote: Dude, there is no evidence for evolution..as I pointed out, evolution is the interpretation of the fact. No one has ever seen reptile-bird transformations, yet, conveniently, the theory is it happened so long ago that no one has ever saw it, nor will those that are alive today will ever be able to see it.

So when evolution posits that something happened in the past before we can observe it, it's suspiciously "convenient," but when christianity posits that god created the universe, the garden of eden, all that stuff, and nobody was around to observe it, that's... not literally exactly the same thing? Undecided

Quote:Dude, if you don't see the con involved in that, then I can't help you. Either someone is duping you, or you are duping yourself. Either way, you are being duped.

I guess god is a con too, then. Rolleyes

Quote:1. You make the observation:You observe a fossil...you look at it, examine it...analyze it.

2. You make an interpretation: You conclude that this fossil is the evolutionary predecessor of a modern day organism/animal.

An interpretation which is backed by our observations of still living creatures, how they change over time, their genetics, stuff like that. Everything is an interpretation as filtered through the lens of human experience, but evolution is, at least, a well justified interpretation of all the available facts, whereas creationism is... not.

Quote:The difference is...one is a FACT...the other is an opinion, because when I look at a fossil, that is NOT what I interpret...now, we both may have our own reason for why we interpret the same thing differently...but both are interpretations, nonetheless.

Not all interpretations are equal, if that's the way you want to play it.

Quote:The problem that evolutionists have is they want to make their interpretation part of the fact, but sorry, Charlie, that ain't how it works.

Certainly it is, when that interpretation has as much factual justification as evolution has. Of course, a similar level of justification would lead to us abandoning the theory, so maybe come back when you have that, rather than this dime store solipsism you want to enforce on the rest of us? Rolleyes

Quote:Now sure, you can believe that reptiles evolved into birds, you can believe that whales were once land dwelling animals, and you can believe that we all share a common ancestor..but that is not science, because science is based on observation...experiment...and prediction...and macroevolution completely FAILS in all regards.

Let's take the whales example: when we look at modern whales, we can see from their bone structure, anatomy and so on, that they still have features of land dwelling animals. When we look at their DNA, we see that it most closely matches ungulates, a land dwelling set of animals which share the features whales still possess. Notably, many of those features are useless on whales, including vestigial leg bones found inside the whale's body.

These are observations and experiments that allow us to determine that whales are related to land dwelling animals.

Quote:Observation: You may observe the fossils, but no human has ever observed a reptile-bird kind of transformation. They believe that this occurred millions of years ago (conveniently), but no one has ever seen it.

Experiment: No one has ever conducted an experiment that would get you those macro kind of results.

I'm sorry, but evolution isn't obligated to take place on time scales you'd like.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Esquilax's post
01-04-2015, 02:08 PM
RE: Question about flood
(01-04-2015 09:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Let me just enlighten you on what is going on here...not just on this forum, but in the world, on particularly this very subject.

No much but okay

(01-04-2015 09:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Now atheists, of course, don't believe in God, correct? Now, if God is taken out of the equation, atheists would still need to provide an explanation of the origin of species, and the origin of life, too. See, on atheism, evolution is the ONLY game in town. It MUST have happened...in fact, that is the ONLY way it could have happened.

Well Robert T. Bakker would disagree. So would many other christians and muslims who accept evolution. Evolution isn't a cop out it is the explanation for why life is diverse. Evolution is:

"Change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the level of species, individual organisms, and at the level of molecular evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

So when GWG pointed out the evidence he did really show evolution by definition. He wasn't playing. There is much more to evolution than just those examples.

Also evolution is the best explanation we have not because we want, because it is shown. This I will go over in a bit.

(01-04-2015 09:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  That is exactly why, despite no observational evidence, you people are so hell bent on believing it. Dude, there is no evidence for evolution..as I pointed out, evolution is the interpretation of the fact. No one has ever seen reptile-bird transformations, yet, conveniently, the theory is it happened so long ago that no one has ever saw it, nor will those that are alive today will ever be able to see it.

Let us go over the definition of observational.


1.
a. The act of observing: observations of a rare bird.
b. The power or faculty of observing.
c. The fact of being observed: kept the suspect under observation.

2.
a. The act or process of perceiving something, such as a phenomenon, often by means of an instrument, and making a record of the resulting information.
b. The result or record of such an act or process: a meteorological observation.

3. An inference, judgment, or remark that is made by observing: made some sharp observations about the movie.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/observational

Based on your usage you are at 1a. But then what is the definition of observe.

1.
a. To be or become aware of, especially through careful and directed attention; notice: observed a car leaving the property.
b. To watch attentively: observe a child's behavior.
c. To make a systematic or scientific observation of: observe the orbit of a comet.

2. To say casually; remark: "'It's nice to have somebody to wait on you,' she observed, with a laugh" (Upton Sinclair).

3.
a. To adhere to or abide by; comply with: observe the terms of a contract.
b. To act in acknowledgment of (a holiday, for example); keep or celebrate: observe an anniversary.
c. To maintain (silence or a period of silence), as out of respect for someone who has died.

v.intr.
1. To take notice: stood by the window observing.

2. To say something; make a comment or remark: observed upon the unusual weather.

3. To watch or be present without participating actively: We were invited to the conference solely to observe.

See number one bolded that is what science does. If a blind man felt the floor and said it was wood that is an observation. Observation=/=Seeing.

You will see why definitions will be your downfall in a bit.

(01-04-2015 09:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dude, if you don't see the con involved in that, then I can't help you. Either someone is duping you, or you are duping yourself. Either way, you are being duped.

Because years of research and study from scientist big or small, black or white, atheist or theist,male or female, heterosexual or homosexual. Evolution happens every time you need to get a shot.

(01-04-2015 09:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But getting back to the interpretation stuff...the same thing I told GWOG...when you find an fossil, two things happen..

1. You make the observation:You observe a fossil...you look at it, examine it...analyze it.

2. You make an interpretation: You conclude that this fossil is the evolutionary predecessor of a modern day organism/animal.

The difference is...one is a FACT...the other is an opinion, because when I look at a fossil, that is NOT what I interpret...now, we both may have our own reason for why we interpret the same thing differently...but both are interpretations, nonetheless.

And you are wrong. As we went over observation before let us go over what happens when you make an observation. Let us take for example tiktaalik.. Tiktaalik is the best example of the observation of evolution. Before tiktaalik was found we have had transitional fossils like panderichthys and acanthostega but nothing to complete what would be in the middle. So not only did they predict the look and the traits of tiktaalik but they also knew exactly what age the rock it should be found in. And with that prediction based on the observation of fossils they found exactly what they said should happen. That is what is know as a prediction.


(01-04-2015 09:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The problem that evolutionists have is they want to make their interpretation part of the fact, but sorry, Charlie, that ain't how it works. Now sure, you can believe that reptiles evolved into birds, you can believe that whales were once land dwelling animals, and you can believe that we all share a common ancestor..but that is not science, because science is based on observation...experiment...and prediction...and macroevolution completely FAILS in all regards.

First let me say that you don't believe in science you except it.

Now evolution has tons of scientific papers on it and connected to it even recently as shown here

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.l...evolution/

and look it is on a science website

http://www.scientificamerican.com/evolutionary-biology/

Here is another one(though the name is an oxymoron)

Also let us go over this macro and micro evolution thing by definition.

Here is the definition of micro evolution.

"Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life"

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_37

Here is the definition of macro evolution

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree."

However we have observed macro evolution through fossils or eyewitness it has been proven. If it was different show us the scientific paper.

(01-04-2015 09:29 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Prediction: No one can predict when the next "changes" will occur.

So basically, evolution isn't even science...it is a default theory that unbelievers must believe in to account for species.

It is not predicting the changes, it is predicting the evidence, like my tiktaalik example.

Yes evolution is a theory to account for species and not needing god for it, like gravity accounts for masses attracting without god, and germ theory explains sickness without god, and how much more science that explains things without god.

So evolution is a science, hell for atheist and theist. Keep in mind that evolution=/= no god.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
01-04-2015, 02:17 PM
RE: Question about flood
lol oh the stupid, it burns, it truly does.

Again, I just want to publicly thank Wail of the Child for potentially helping to create more atheists than all of our efforts to do so could ever do. All of those guests who come by here daily and lurk, because they either are already atheists, or, they are battling inner doubt and are on the fence, reading the forums for information to help them figure out where they want to lean....and they read this idiot's assertions, his weak ass, baseless, factless interpretation of christian doctrine, his apparent inability to comprehend basic science, his epic level of failing to see the massive holes in every statement he makes....just helps those on the fence to hop down shaking their heads, and start their journey down the path of epistemological understanding of the real world around them free of delusion.

So thanks COTW, job well done Thumbsup

"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
[+] 5 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
01-04-2015, 05:04 PM
RE: Question about flood
(01-04-2015 02:17 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  lol oh the stupid, it burns, it truly does.

Again, I just want to publicly thank Wail of the Child for potentially helping to create more atheists than all of our efforts to do so could ever do. All of those guests who come by here daily and lurk, because they either are already atheists, or, they are battling inner doubt and are on the fence, reading the forums for information to help them figure out where they want to lean....and they read this idiot's assertions, his weak ass, baseless, factless interpretation of christian doctrine, his apparent inability to comprehend basic science, his epic level of failing to see the massive holes in every statement he makes....just helps those on the fence to hop down shaking their heads, and start their journey down the path of epistemological understanding of the real world around them free of delusion.

So thanks COTW, job well done Thumbsup

Awww, don't be so upset, GWOG...One day, I will EVENTUALLY let you win a debate against me. One day, when no one is around to see it, there will be a macro change of events between me and you...and that is the day that I will go from intellectually spanking you allll around the forum, to you actually making a sound argument and/or objection to what I say...now, since such a circumstance is on so much of a macro level, this may not happen for a few hundred million years. But it is a goal that you can have hope for.

In fact, I will give you my honest word (as a car salesman), that in a few hundred million years, in about the same time as it take for a reptile to change into a bird, you will win a debate with me.

ThumbsupThumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 05:08 PM
RE: Question about flood
(01-04-2015 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(01-04-2015 02:17 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  lol oh the stupid, it burns, it truly does.

Again, I just want to publicly thank Wail of the Child for potentially helping to create more atheists than all of our efforts to do so could ever do. All of those guests who come by here daily and lurk, because they either are already atheists, or, they are battling inner doubt and are on the fence, reading the forums for information to help them figure out where they want to lean....and they read this idiot's assertions, his weak ass, baseless, factless interpretation of christian doctrine, his apparent inability to comprehend basic science, his epic level of failing to see the massive holes in every statement he makes....just helps those on the fence to hop down shaking their heads, and start their journey down the path of epistemological understanding of the real world around them free of delusion.

So thanks COTW, job well done Thumbsup

Awww, don't be so upset, GWOG...One day, I will EVENTUALLY let you win a debate against me. One day, when no one is around to see it, there will be a macro change of events between me and you...and that is the day that I will go from intellectually spanking you allll around the forum, to you actually making a sound argument and/or objection to what I say...now, since such a circumstance is on so much of a macro level, this may not happen for a few hundred million years. But it is a goal that you can have hope for.

In fact, I will give you my honest word (as a car salesman), that in a few hundred million years, in about the same time as it take for a reptile to change into a bird, you will win a debate with me.

ThumbsupThumbsup

You have not yet actually engaged in a debate, let alone win one. All you have done is make baseless assertions and ignorant denials.

Your inflated self-image is ridiculous and if you were at all self-aware you would be embarrassed.

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
01-04-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Question about flood
(01-04-2015 05:04 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  In fact, I will give you my honest word (as a car salesman) that in a few hundred million years, in about the same time as it take for a reptile to change into a bird, you will win a debate with me.

ThumbsupThumbsup

What i bolded should tell you something.

Second did you read what i wrote or did i do something right?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 06:13 PM
RE: Question about flood





And I give you Ring Species

Mixed with a little thing I like to call Gravity

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: