Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2016, 12:56 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 12:44 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Bruh, dogs produce dogs. I don't care how red your face gets. I don't care how much smoke comes out of your ears in anger. I don't care how "tough" you type your words.

The fact still remains. Dogs...produce...DOGS. You, nor anyone you know, has EVER seen anything contrary to this. Yet, you believe that long ago, when no one was CONVENIENTLY around to see it, there were gradual reptile-bird kinds of transformations.

You can believe that bullshit if you want, but it isn't science, unless you call voodoo science.

Yes, yes. You've said this before, too.

And, as has been explained to you previously, you are not even wrong.

You have fundamentally failed to grasp the concept of evolution, and as such, your "objections" - which come down to nothing but "I don't see how it could be true, and thus it's impossible" - have no actual bearing on the theory. Animals producing offspring of their own species is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts. What you fail to grasp is that this reproduction takes place with variation, and that there is no magical force in play which stops these variations from happening after a certain point of deviation from the original.

Your position hinges on the assertion that "kinds" are hard-and-fast restrictions on variation in reproduction, but, in reality, what determines an animal's characteristics is just its DNA - and there is nothing in DNA that prevents gradual change from accumulating to a point where a descendant cannot be considered the same species as its ancestor. This is because species is, in the end, just a system of labels made so that biologists can keep track of things, not an actual property inherent in a given animal's biological makeup. Species is determined by DNA, not the other way around.

Aside from the fact that the theory of evolution is a natural consequence of what we know - that is, what we directly observe - about biology, and creationism is actually the side making an assertion in contradiction to what we see, we have mountains of evidence that evolution can, does, and has been happening since life first arose on the planet. Again, ignoring the fossil record does not make it go away, and rejecting deduction as a concept only makes you look like an idiot.

But then, you obviously have no problem with looking like a fool, since you go out of your way to do it so often.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Unbeliever's post
21-03-2016, 12:58 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 12:51 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It has been explained to you that evolution depends on preexisting life.

But it does not depend on how that life came to be.

Try again. Preferably with at least thirty seconds' worth of research this time.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Unbeliever's post
21-03-2016, 12:58 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 12:35 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 10:05 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  despite our very similar DNA? so DNA doesn't appear to be a factor to you. how do you define a ''kind'' then? just visually? that seems kinda vague. im not super familar with the bible. where does it say that we are not animals?

First, go in a lab and get me life from nonlife. Until you can do that, you don't have a viable theory of evolution.

That's not how it works, you ignorant child.

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
21-03-2016, 01:01 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
Quote:Dogs...produce...DOGS
[Image: angry_crying_girl.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 01:01 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 12:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 12:49 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Come on you scrote. We haven't got all night. Where's your proof that your god created life, as opposed to one of the other 4,199 other deities or the giant flying spaghetti monster, or a leprechaun, or the tooth fairy or santa friggin claus.

Come on.

We are waiting scrote.

A First Cause is necessary. Now, your comrades on here have already been served up cans of ass whoopings on the various cosmological arguments. Would you like to be next, junior? Big Grin

Fuck me. Is that it you cretin? A first cause is necessary. Therefore it must be your god out of all the 4,200 other gods - not counting the giant flying spaghetti monster et al. Tell me that you have better than this. Please.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 01:07 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 12:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  A First Cause is necessary. Now, your comrades on here have already been served up cans of ass whoopings on the various cosmological arguments. Would you like to be next, junior? Big Grin




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
21-03-2016, 01:09 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
Quote:A First Cause is necessary

So were down from dogs to abiogenesis to "first cause"
We are making progress i see. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 01:12 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 12:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 12:49 PM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  Come on you scrote. We haven't got all night. Where's your proof that your god created life, as opposed to one of the other 4,199 other deities or the giant flying spaghetti monster, or a leprechaun, or the tooth fairy or santa friggin claus.

Come on.

We are waiting scrote.

A First Cause is necessary. Now, your comrades on here have already been served up cans of ass whoopings on the various cosmological arguments. Would you like to be next, junior? Big Grin

You do realise scrote that we have been down this route many times and it turns out more or less the same each time with scrotes like you beaten to a pulp.

Give up now. There's a good little boy.

You are just not up to this.

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like god has no twitter account's post
21-03-2016, 01:14 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 01:09 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
Quote:A First Cause is necessary

So were down from dogs to abiogenesis to "first cause"
We are making progress i see. Facepalm

Don't forget 'kinds' a la Hovind - and the talking snake because we must not forget the talking snake.Laughat

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 01:17 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(21-03-2016 01:07 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 12:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  A First Cause is necessary. Now, your comrades on here have already been served up cans of ass whoopings on the various cosmological arguments. Would you like to be next, junior? Big Grin




Yeah, that was about my first thought, too.

For those who missed the last installment of "Call_of_the_Wild Thinks He Understands Philosophy", he served up, unmodified and without irony, the Kalam cosmological argument and Plantinga's modal formulation of the ontological argument. The latter of these was even stated, by its author, to fail to prove its conclusion.

Both the cosmological and ontological arguments, in all their variations (which are basically just a handful of lackwits swapping a handful of words for impressive-sounding synonyms and then trying to take credit for the whole shebang) for God's existence have been established as fallacious for literally centuries. Their issues were pointed out time and again in the previous discussion, and yet here Call is again, "threatening" to present them, unaltered and without any consideration of what he should have learned by now, once again.

How could we have possibly seen this coming?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: