Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-04-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: Question about flood
(06-04-2015 11:52 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I will debate you, again, anytime you wish...here. Feel free to issue a challenge in the boxing ring, and I will endeavor to educate you some more. Wish to discuss incarnation and atonement theory, sure, mythical resurrection? sure, historicity of the bible? sure, historicity, or rather lack of..for jesus? sure, fabrication of the OT? Sure, case against moses? sure...whenever you think you have watched enough youtube videos, come get some. Be ready to cite your assertions, if not, then you are just bloviating your opinion. "I think god exists" is fine to say, because that is your belief in the transcendental fairy world, but any actual attempt to discredit history, better have your citations ready....because I will Smile

As an added bonus, I will use ONLY Christian textbooks and scholarly works to prove my points, not atheists books/websites Smartass

How about we just continue our debate from the first time...You made an opening statement, I made a rebuttal...and what happened after that, I don't know...we can just pick it up after my rebuttal, and take it from there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2015, 12:09 PM
RE: Question about flood
You never even addressed Abiogenesis. I guess because it fucked up your premise. You're a troll.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2015, 12:13 PM
RE: Question about flood
(07-04-2015 11:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 11:52 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I will debate you, again, anytime you wish...here. Feel free to issue a challenge in the boxing ring, and I will endeavor to educate you some more. Wish to discuss incarnation and atonement theory, sure, mythical resurrection? sure, historicity of the bible? sure, historicity, or rather lack of..for jesus? sure, fabrication of the OT? Sure, case against moses? sure...whenever you think you have watched enough youtube videos, come get some. Be ready to cite your assertions, if not, then you are just bloviating your opinion. "I think god exists" is fine to say, because that is your belief in the transcendental fairy world, but any actual attempt to discredit history, better have your citations ready....because I will Smile

As an added bonus, I will use ONLY Christian textbooks and scholarly works to prove my points, not atheists books/websites Smartass

How about we just continue our debate from the first time...You made an opening statement, I made a rebuttal...and what happened after that, I don't know...we can just pick it up after my rebuttal, and take it from there.

I will educate debate you on evolution if you want a debate so bad.

[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
07-04-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: Question about flood
(07-04-2015 11:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.

Which is why you're twisting my arm to bend to your definition of a "kind". There is no scientific definition of a "kind". This is simply a way for creationists to argue against species not being able to interbreed, but being of the same "kind".

It's attempting to wriggle out of something, and I would not like to partake in that kind of bending.

(07-04-2015 11:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.

Do you understand how evolutionists actually gathered the information and came to the conclusion that dinosaurs millions of years ago are related to birds today? The current arguments you're using show that you don't understand their reasoning behind it. Thus why you're arguing against a type of evolution you nor I believe is true.

(07-04-2015 11:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.

Not really sure how evolution and abiogenesis directly relate to me being an atheist, but that's a pretty big leap.

Explaining how the physics of the universe works, how particles react, or how electricity flows through devices isn't a religion. We use the scientific method to verify what we cannot see, evolution is one we cannot see. In this matter it's no different than the examples I have listed. If you think it's a religion to hold evolution as a belief, then the others may as well be religions by your definition.

(07-04-2015 11:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.

We're trying to give you documentation in regards to what you're seeking answers to. Why should you hold us to our word without reading the research behind it? It makes sense to read the information from both sides. (Which I have) More importantly, I'm okay with reading the links you post as well. If you take the time and show the effort and build a case against what I posted, I will take the time to read what you post in return.

We have to have a two-way street. If not to agree, to at least understand where one or the other truly is.

(07-04-2015 11:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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

Pretty much. lol Wherever this portion of the conversation derived from, let's just let it die.

(07-04-2015 11:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.

I posted the research paper that has various examples of it in there, give it a read.

(07-04-2015 11:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.

You realize that we did not see those before we theorized they existed correct? Yes, I agree with you, the better technology gets the smaller things we'll be able to see. (Not everything, but most probably get where I'm going with that)

Also, how is it irrelevant? You cannot see those particles. Can you show me a picture of an electron? It's very much related to the discussion. I just showed you science can produce evidence for what we cannot see. Evolution is one of them. (For the sake of discussion, I'm speaking of "macro" evolution, as much as I dislike the term)

(07-04-2015 11:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.

I wouldn't really say I'm open to it or not. I hold the position that it most likely didn't require a divine hand, but that's a whole other topic of discussion and will most likely just derail us from our conversation at hand.

(07-04-2015 11:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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.

Most, if not all, here probably believe it happened without a divine hand. Didn't see any references in the paper to it or against it. As any decent scientific paper regarding this matter should. It shouldn't be biased towards a creator or against.

(07-04-2015 11:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(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..

You really do not see the differences between the one you propose and the one I accept?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dusky's post
07-04-2015, 02:07 PM
RE: Question about flood
Hey, Wail_of_the_Child, Wendy Wright uses the same massively ignorant approach that you do.




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
07-04-2015, 03:51 PM
RE: Question about flood
Does seeing a rain drop (a single piece of evidence of a thunderstorm) give you any insight into how a storm forms or functions ?

The theory of evolution wasn't derived from a single piece of evidence. It's a collection of millions of pieces that make up a collective explanation for what we observe.

Summation




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
08-04-2015, 10:35 AM
RE: Question about flood
(07-04-2015 12:13 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  I will educate debate you on evolution if you want a debate so bad.

Hoo hoo, clearly somebody doesn't remember what happened when I tried to educate debate this fool over on AF. Sleepy

Dusky Wrote:Which is why you're twisting my arm to bend to your definition of a "kind". There is no scientific definition of a "kind". This is simply a way for creationists to argue against species not being able to interbreed, but being of the same "kind".

It's attempting to wriggle out of something, and I would not like to partake in that kind of bending.

I actually asked him to define what a "kind" is over on my other forum; he spent the entire time dodging. The best I got out of him was "everyone knows what a kind is," and "it's obvious!"

Essentially he doesn't want to give details, because even a single one of them can be used to dismantle the entire edifice of his position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 11:10 AM
RE: Question about flood
(06-04-2015 08:59 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Ok, lets just cut the bs then. Simple question, is an elephant a different kind of animal than a snake..yes or no?

Question for you CotW, would you consider jesus to be the same "kind" of human as human? Would jesus be the same species as human?

Would yahweh be a different species then satan or would they be considered same kind?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: Question about flood
(08-04-2015 10:35 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  I actually asked him to define what a "kind" is over on my other forum; he spent the entire time dodging. The best I got out of him was "everyone knows what a kind is," and "it's obvious!"

He's been asked to define it here as well. The responses were, unsurprisingly, about the same.

Quote:Essentially he doesn't want to give details, because even a single one of them can be used to dismantle the entire edifice of his position.

He can't give details because he has no details. There's nothing to his thinking that goes deeper than "they look similar so they must be the same in some way".

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
08-04-2015, 01:36 PM
RE: Question about flood
(08-04-2015 11:12 AM)unfogged Wrote:  He can't give details because he has no details. There's nothing to his thinking that goes deeper than "they look similar so they must be the same in some way".

1. Noah built a boat and took 2 of every animal on board to make sure they survived the flood.
2. The dimensions of the boat are known from scripture.
3. We know that 2 of every animoke is a fucken shit ton of manure + animals.
4. Ergo they must have been small animals. Also we're gonna assert some kinda piss-poor mockery of evolution based on this business of "kinds" to exponentially decrease the number of animals that needed to be on board the boat.

It's ass-backward. He STARTS from the fucken ridiculous legend and tries to force everything to fit. Rolleyes

Hey asshat, I just thought of something. If your kinds shit is correct, then e.g. every fucken wallaby and kangaroo etc was derived from some prototypical kangaroo "kind" that sailed on board the Ark, correct? Now quite apart from having to do a fucken olympic sprint/swim from somewhere in Europe to Australia and not leave *any* fucken kangaroos or kangaroo remains or even a fucken *coprolith* behind on the way, these things then had to fuck like mad and speciate within the past 6000 years right?

So you, who's been bitching about macro-evolution and micro-evolution, and how macro evolution allegedly can't occur because you say so, are actually asserting that speciation can occur *much* faster - as in within humanly observable timescales...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: