Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-04-2015, 12:22 PM
RE: Question about flood
(06-04-2015 10:46 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 07:05 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  If krav maga was derived from boxing and wrestling, why is there still boxing and wrestling.

Macroevolution = Krav maga evolving into fencing.

That is the kind of large scale change we are talking about here Laugh out loadLaugh out load

The only people talking about that kind of change are those that don't understand evolution.

[Image: tetrapod_evo.jpg]

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Popeye's Pappy's post
06-04-2015, 08:59 PM
RE: Question about flood
(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  No, we aren't going to pretend. Why? This means that we would be accepting portions of what you think the theory should be. Why would we discuss the theory of evolution with someone who wants to interpret the theory in their own way to knock down?

Ok, lets just cut the bs then. Simple question, is an elephant a different kind of animal than a snake..yes or no?

(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  Again, I implore you to learn what it actually is, so that you can actually argue against the correct version of evolution.

Never fails.

(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  What presuppositions? I'm using multiple fields of science to support my idea that the earth is millions of years old. There are no "presuppositions" there. What I am making is a claim that those "small, little, tiny changes eventually add up". I've supported that claim by posting, to you, that paper I referenced earlier. It shows how those teeny tiny changes can add up, but you dismissed it as "evolutionist propaganda". Why reject something you refuse to learn about?

If you already presuppose evolution to be true, then whatever observation that you make will be interpreted based on the presupposition. It is just that simple. As far as the "tiny changes" is concerned, that paper that you referenced...that itself is based on a presupposition, because obviously no one was there hundreds of millions of years ago...therefore, it is just an interpretation of the data/observation.

(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  This is why they're getting angry with you.

They are angry because I am speaking out against their religion Laugh out load

(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  You claim that I am making some religious leap, but in actuality I am simply going through the evidence and using it to back up my claims.

You are going through the interpretation of the given data that you so called "have".

(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  Okay?

Which is question begging.

(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  Sure, it looks voodoo to you because you're unwilling to read up on it and educate yourself on it. The sun moving across the sky was no doubt "voodoo" to ancient peoples, and yet here we are now with a full understanding of it.

Anything beyond "dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats", I am skeptical about. Look, all we see are animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. I have no reasons to believe that millions of years ago, anything was different. If you believe that things were different, fine. But you are going beyond the means of science at that point...because you've never observed those kinds of changes.

(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  Can you actually give some papers a read and pick out what you find illogical?

The fact that most of you believe in evolution with a Divine Hand involved. That is illogical, especially since the current scientific evidence doesn't support this. If you believe it, you are relying on the unseen, which is what is normally called "faith".

(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  I'm sure plenty of people would be more than happy to explain it to you here. Even if you aren't entirely convinced, at least you would know more about what it actually is so you can argue a wee bit better in the end instead of relying on the unreliable Kent Hovind to do the dirty work for you.

Hell, maybe I'll learn something.

Dusky...you are so sincere...so genuine...but so lost.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2015, 10:03 PM
RE: Question about flood
(06-04-2015 08:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  No, we aren't going to pretend. Why? This means that we would be accepting portions of what you think the theory should be. Why would we discuss the theory of evolution with someone who wants to interpret the theory in their own way to knock down?

Ok, lets just cut the bs then. Simple question, is an elephant a different kind of animal than a snake..yes or no?

You know what a species is, best not try and get me to agree with your terminology of a "kind". The arm twisting begins not shortly after that.

(06-04-2015 08:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  Again, I implore you to learn what it actually is, so that you can actually argue against the correct version of evolution.

Never fails.

What never fails? I really fail to see where you're taking this portion of it.

(06-04-2015 08:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  What presuppositions? I'm using multiple fields of science to support my idea that the earth is millions of years old. There are no "presuppositions" there. What I am making is a claim that those "small, little, tiny changes eventually add up". I've supported that claim by posting, to you, that paper I referenced earlier. It shows how those teeny tiny changes can add up, but you dismissed it as "evolutionist propaganda". Why reject something you refuse to learn about?

If you already presuppose evolution to be true, then whatever observation that you make will be interpreted based on the presupposition. It is just that simple. As far as the "tiny changes" is concerned, that paper that you referenced...that itself is based on a presupposition, because obviously no one was there hundreds of millions of years ago...therefore, it is just an interpretation of the data/observation.

(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  This is why they're getting angry with you.

They are angry because I am speaking out against their religion Laugh out load

Well I'd venture forth to say they're angry because of that very statement. You're coming to a forum to call something they've found considerable evidence for to be a religion. Fueling the fire, if you will.

(06-04-2015 08:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  You claim that I am making some religious leap, but in actuality I am simply going through the evidence and using it to back up my claims.

You are going through the interpretation of the given data that you so called "have".

But you haven't read it, how would you know what it is and isn't? Again, you're simply just dismissing any evidence without even looking at it. I'm taking the time to get to know your position, and I'm taking the time to give you mine. Arguments aside, I'm interested in having a conversation. What's the point in talking if you're going to brush it off and not give something a look? Why are we exerting the effort then in discussing it?

(06-04-2015 08:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  Okay?

Which is question begging.

Apparently question begging is off in your definition as well. The previous statement had no indication or reason for a discussion, thus prompting my confused "Okay?" in hopes for clarification. Simply telling me what you think my response is gets you, as well as myself, nowhere.

(06-04-2015 08:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  Sure, it looks voodoo to you because you're unwilling to read up on it and educate yourself on it. The sun moving across the sky was no doubt "voodoo" to ancient peoples, and yet here we are now with a full understanding of it.

Anything beyond "dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats", I am skeptical about. Look, all we see are animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. I have no reasons to believe that millions of years ago, anything was different. If you believe that things were different, fine. But you are going beyond the means of science at that point...because you've never observed those kinds of changes.

Yes! Be skeptical. Nobody is asking you not to be, but let's take the evidence we give you at hand and discuss it. Let's see exactly what you find strange about these papers and go into it. If in the end, you still find it unbelievable, at least we gave it a try.

Also, let's go to the observing portion. I'll humbly borrow this from talk.origins because they sum up the observable extremely well. Here are just a few things that you most likely believe exist, and yet, we have never observed them.

"Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix."

So there you have it. Science helped explain roughly 15 or so examples of things we cannot directly observe.

(06-04-2015 08:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  Can you actually give some papers a read and pick out what you find illogical?

The fact that most of you believe in evolution with a Divine Hand involved. That is illogical, especially since the current scientific evidence doesn't support this. If you believe it, you are relying on the unseen, which is what is normally called "faith".

Did you mean without a Divine Hand? I'm not sure anyone here really believes that. If I am wrong, they are more than welcome to say so as I do not speak for them.

Even then, I'm really not sure what your response has to do with the portion of my post you are quoting. I made no reference to Divine Powers or anything in relation to it. I asked you to read a few papers and let me know what you find illogical.

(06-04-2015 08:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 11:48 AM)Dusky Wrote:  I'm sure plenty of people would be more than happy to explain it to you here. Even if you aren't entirely convinced, at least you would know more about what it actually is so you can argue a wee bit better in the end instead of relying on the unreliable Kent Hovind to do the dirty work for you.

Hell, maybe I'll learn something.

Dusky...you are so sincere...so genuine...but so lost.

Well ending with a remark like that doesn't seem like a good way to continue a conversation. I'm more than willing to engage in a discussion, and in the end if we disagree, I'm okay with that. I want to have an actual conversation though, not a debate against a strange version of evolution you have as I clearly do not agree with your form.

Looks like we both at least agree with something, eh?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2015, 05:36 AM
RE: Question about flood
Dusky, by now you must realize that his brain has been washed clean of rational thought and critical thinking.

You are trying to have a conversation with something that can't understand.

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
07-04-2015, 05:45 AM
RE: Question about flood
(07-04-2015 05:36 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Dusky, by now you must realize that his brain has been washed clean of rational thought and critical thinking.

You are trying to have a conversation with something that can't understand.

And adamantly refuses to understand. 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
07-04-2015, 05:45 AM
RE: Question about flood
(07-04-2015 05:36 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  You are trying to have a conversation with something that can't refuses to understand.

FTFY

EDIT: FUCK! I got Ninja'd!

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
07-04-2015, 05:47 AM
RE: Question about flood
(07-04-2015 05:45 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(07-04-2015 05:36 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  You are trying to have a conversation with something that can't refuses to understand.

FTFY

EDIT: FUCK! I got Ninja'd!

Youth and brilliance are no match for age and treachery. 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-04-2015, 06:07 AM
RE: Question about flood
(07-04-2015 05:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-04-2015 05:45 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  FTFY

EDIT: FUCK! I got Ninja'd!

Youth and brilliance are no match for age and treachery. Drinking Beverage

[Image: movies-clint_00418105.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2015, 07:36 AM
RE: Question about flood
(06-04-2015 08:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Anything beyond "dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats", I am skeptical about. Look, all we see are animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. I have no reasons to believe that millions of years ago, anything was different.

And nobody is claiming that anything was different millions of years ago. The laws of physics and chemistry and the way biological organisms reproduce were exactly the same millions of years ago as they are now, and nobody is claiming otherwise. What we are claiming -- and you keep refusing to acknowledge -- is that small changes repeated over millions of years can add up to large changes. That principle was valid millions of years ago, and it is still valid now.

Please stop knocking down straw men and address the points we are actually making.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
07-04-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: Question about flood
(06-04-2015 10:03 PM)Dusky Wrote:  You know what a species is, best not try and get me to agree with your terminology of a "kind". The arm twisting begins not shortly after that.

Nonsense. A dog, a wolf, and a coyote are different species, but they are obviously the same "kind" of animal.

(06-04-2015 10:03 PM)Dusky Wrote:  What never fails? I really fail to see where you're taking this portion of it.

The whole "you just don't understand evolution" bit. Never fails.

(06-04-2015 10:03 PM)Dusky Wrote:  Well I'd venture forth to say they're angry because of that very statement. You're coming to a forum to call something they've found considerable evidence for to be a religion. Fueling the fire, if you will.

It is a religion...when theists attempt to explain the origins of man, that is a religion...but when atheists attempt to explain the origins of man/species..that is not a religion?? It doesn't matter what route you take to get there, the point is, you are attempting to get there. Evolution/Abiogenesis <----religions without God.

(06-04-2015 10:03 PM)Dusky Wrote:  But you haven't read it, how would you know what it is and isn't? Again, you're simply just dismissing any evidence without even looking at it. I'm taking the time to get to know your position, and I'm taking the time to give you mine. Arguments aside, I'm interested in having a conversation. What's the point in talking if you're going to brush it off and not give something a look? Why are we exerting the effort then in discussing it?

I am interesting in having a convo as well...the problem is, you people post links as if that is supposed to prove something. I could post just as many links as you do which supports my position...so it is just a waste of time.

(06-04-2015 10:03 PM)Dusky Wrote:  Apparently question begging is off in your definition as well. The previous statement had no indication or reason for a discussion, thus prompting my confused "Okay?" in hopes for clarification. Simply telling me what you think my response is gets you, as well as myself, nowhere.

Huh

(06-04-2015 10:03 PM)Dusky Wrote:  Yes! Be skeptical. Nobody is asking you not to be, but let's take the evidence we give you at hand and discuss it. Let's see exactly what you find strange about these papers and go into it. If in the end, you still find it unbelievable, at least we gave it a try.

Give me the single best evidence you have for evolution, and we can take it from there.

(06-04-2015 10:03 PM)Dusky Wrote:  Also, let's go to the observing portion. I'll humbly borrow this from talk.origins because they sum up the observable extremely well. Here are just a few things that you most likely believe exist, and yet, we have never observed them.

"Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix."

So there you have it. Science helped explain roughly 15 or so examples of things we cannot directly observe.

I don't know, I just googled the images of viruses, bacteria, germs, genes, protein enzymes, and DNA...and when I googled the images...guess what I saw?? IMAGES.

As far as the other stuff is concerned, who cares. I am concerned about what science has to say regarding origins...all of that other stuff is irrelevant.

(06-04-2015 10:03 PM)Dusky Wrote:  Did you mean without a Divine Hand? I'm not sure anyone here really believes that. If I am wrong, they are more than welcome to say so as I do not speak for them.

You are right, Dusky..I meant without a Divine Hand...even though most of these jokers pretend as if they are open to theistic evolution, but I doubt that they really are.

(06-04-2015 10:03 PM)Dusky Wrote:  Even then, I'm really not sure what your response has to do with the portion of my post you are quoting. I made no reference to Divine Powers or anything in relation to it. I asked you to read a few papers and let me know what you find illogical.

And I saying I find it illogical to think that evolution happens without a Divine Hand, which is what MOST of you believe anyway. If the paper that you are refering to involves theistic evolution, then I tip my hat out to the author of the paper.

(06-04-2015 10:03 PM)Dusky Wrote:  Well ending with a remark like that doesn't seem like a good way to continue a conversation. I'm more than willing to engage in a discussion, and in the end if we disagree, I'm okay with that. I want to have an actual conversation though, not a debate against a strange version of evolution you have as I clearly do not agree with your form.

Looks like we both at least agree with something, eh?

I don't see how it is a strange version...but then again, since you've neglected to tell me how does my "version" of evolution differs from your "version"...I guess there is no wonder..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: