Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2016, 03:21 PM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2016 08:27 PM by Chas.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 03:12 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 01:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is neither a dichotomy nor false. You don't appear to know what that term means.

Evolutionary theory makes predictions, that is one of the hallmarks of a scientific theory.

Any prediction that evolutionary theory makes are all geared towards micro evolution. Make a prediction regarding macro evolution, you know, reptile-bird stuff. Whatcha got there?

Nothing.


Not nothing. Tiktaalik
.

The algorithm that is evolution predicts the diversity we see.

Imperfect replication and differential reproduction make evolution certain. Mathematically certain.

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
19-02-2016, 03:30 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Now I'm uniformed on these views, are bats still apart of the bird "kind?"

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2016, 03:42 PM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2016 03:46 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And as I pointed out, we've neither witnessed nor observed the phenomena that allegedly took place.

No. You have asserted this.

You remain wrong. Both Chas and I have given multiple examples of observations that we have made which support the theory of evolution.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, actually. You can. This has been pointed out repeatedly, with ring species being one of the primary examples. I have been over this before.

I've addressed this already, next.

No, you haven't.

If you're going to dodge an issue, try not to make it so pathetically blatant.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Creationist "kinds", however, are supposedly hard-and-fast limitations upon the breeding and mutational capabilities of animals. And again, the concept completely fails upon actual application, as the various members of ring species are of the same "kind", yet fail to interbreed.

I don't know how certain animals can be of the same "kind", and yet fail to interbreed.

It's your theory, sir. You are responsible for filling the holes.

Just don't forget to account for ring species.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But what I do know is that a cheetah is the same "kind" of animal as any other animal within the feline class/family (or whatever). They are all obviously the same kind of animal. Obviously.

"Obviously" is not a functional definition. "Obviously" is worthless.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Have you even bothered to look up what they are?

Is it going to give me any example of the type of reptile-bird kind of transformation you believe occurred? If not, then it is irrelevant.

It really isn't.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So far, you described a scenario at which birds got together, reproduced, and produced bird offspring as an end result. You do realize that, right?

So birds produce birds, even in your scenario. Thanks for proving my point.

You really don't understand what the theory of evolution actually says, do you? At no point will a parent give birth to a different species of child.

Speciation happens regardless. And it does, explicitly, with ring species.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  "As a whole" would mean a complete fossil record

No.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Um, I used the evidence that people from YOUR side of the aisle have presented.

No. You use partial evidence, deliberately ignoring all else that is presented, in order to make the case appear weaker than it actually is.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  "Complicated and intricate".......a mindless process giving instructions

You really don't seem to understand this whole "it's a chemical reaction, doing what chemical reactions do" thing.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  He appreciates DNA so much that you'd think he was an advocate of intelligent design if you didn't actually know about the guy.

Everyone appreciates DNA. It's incredibly intricate and impressive.

It still does not require an intelligent creator, and you have still utterly failed to advance any actual argument as to why it does. Saying "it's very complicated and information-rich" does not in any way support your assertion. Nor does playing games with figurative language regarding "instructions". DNA is not conscious. Cells are not conscious. No active "reading" occurs. Trying to twist figures of speech into literal fact only serves to make you look rather silly.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am actually asking what was it before it became a full-bodied animal that we call a "horse".

Then read the article. I am not interested in spoon-feeding you.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am asking you for clarity on your position regarding the issue (the possibility of infinite regression). Please provide an answer.

I have already given it. Re-read my posts.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, the fact of the matter is simple; if you don't believe in God (a First Cause), then by default, you believe in infinite regression.

No.

There is no infinite regression. There was also no cause, because a cause requires causality, and causality requires time. Positing a cause for the existence of time is nonsensical.

The universe simply is. And, for all that I already know that your response will be to mock baselessly for positing that something exists without a cause, your theistic position has the same issue. You simply kick the can one step down the road, then expect special pleading to suffice as the reason that universes need a cause but gods do not.

(19-02-2016 03:10 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 01:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What do you think that the theory of evolution says, Call? What is your understanding of the theory?

I've already answer that question, sir.

No. No, you have not. And if you have, then it would be extraordinarily easy to get me to stop asking this. All you have to do is copy and paste your previous response. Less than thirty seconds' effort, and we can all move on.

What do you think that the theory of evolution says, Call? What is your understanding of the theory? Not "what specific examples of evolution do you want to argue are ridiculous?", not "what is your opinion on the reptile-bird issue?", not "what do you think is wrong with the fossil record?". Just "what do you think the word 'evolution' means?"

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
21-02-2016, 10:42 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2016 10:48 AM by Call_of_the_Wild.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It's your theory, sir. You are responsible for filling the holes.

I never said I have all of the answers. To conclude that a cheetah ain't a cat, despite NOT being able to reproduce with other "cats" is to be intellectually dishonest. Why this is the case, I don't know. But a cheetah is obviously part of the "cat" family/kind.

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Just don't forget to account for ring species.

If it isn't going to get me what I am asking for (reptile-bird kind of shit), then it has no relevance.

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  "Obviously" is not a functional definition. "Obviously" is worthless.

Is a cheetah a cat? Yes, or no? If the answer is yes, then my point is quite proven.

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You really don't understand what the theory of evolution actually says, do you? At no point will a parent give birth to a different species of child.

Um, I am advocating AGAINST macro transformations such as reptile-bird. In your example, you gave examples of bird-bird. That is almost a borderline straw man attack.

The Bible says that all animals were made to "bring forth after there kinds", and even in the example you gave, that is exactly what happened Laugh out load You can't give any example of a reptile-bird transformation, can you?

Go ahead, give an example of such a transformation...in the same way you gave the "bird" scenario, give a reptile-bird scenario.

Can you do that for me?

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No. You use partial evidence, deliberately ignoring all else that is presented, in order to make the case appear weaker than it actually is.

So you admit that the case is weak for evolution Thumbsup

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You really don't seem to understand this whole "it's a chemical reaction, doing what chemical reactions do" thing.

So basically, "chemicals do what chemicals do"...ok, go in a lab, and get all of the chemicals you need...and create LIFE from nonlife.

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Everyone appreciates DNA. It's incredibly intricate and impressive.

It still does not require an intelligent creator, and you have still utterly failed to advance any actual argument as to why it does. Saying "it's very complicated and information-rich" does not in any way support your assertion.

Nor does playing games with figurative language regarding "instructions".

Um, first off, no one is "playing games with figurative language regarding instructions". I am the one that said that DNA is coded. Remember, you were the one that erroneously said that DNA is not encoded. Richard Dawkins is a biologist, right (remember, you implied that since Bill Gates wasn't a biologist, he had no authority on the matter)...and now I gave you a biologist, who is an atheist just like you are...who conceded the point that DNA is ENCODED INFORMATION. So is Dawkins also "playing games with figurative language regarding instructions", or are you moving goal posts?

I challenge you to give me one REAL LIFE example of a said "code" to not be the result of an intelligent mind (programmer). You can't, can you? So the only thing you can do is use the taxi cab fallacy...by basically admitting that codes are in fact instructions for EVERY OTHER coded scenario EXCEPT the one the scenario that is against your naturalistic worldview.

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  DNA is not conscious. Cells are not conscious. No active "reading" occurs.

No shit, Captain Obvious. The cells in your brain aren't conscious, yet "you" are conscious...so what is "you"? And likewise, the DNA isn't conscious, but the encrypted information within it is "saying something".

And that is the whole point. Again, you can deny it, downplay it all you want. But we both know that deep down inside, you are going against the grain, sir.

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Trying to twist figures of speech into literal fact only serves to make you look rather silly.

If anyone looks silly here, it is you.

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I have already given it. Re-read my posts.

Well, we both know you've said nothing to negate the necessity of a First Cause, just like any of those links you guys like to post prove or demonstrate anything regarding macro evolution.

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No. There is no infinite regression. There was also no cause, because a cause requires causality, and causality requires time. Positing a cause for the existence of time is nonsensical.

So, there is no infinite regression OR First Cause? *Sigh* Lord, why do I even bother? Is that the price of atheist? Nonsense?? Illogic?

It seriously seems like you guys have the "no matter how much bullshit and nonsensical it seems, it is still better than the God Hypothesis".

If that is obviously the price of atheism.

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The universe simply is.

I don't know what that shit means.

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And, for all that I already know that your response will be to mock baselessly for positing that something exists without a cause, your theistic position has the same issue. You simply kick the can one step down the road, then expect special pleading to suffice as the reason that universes need a cause but gods do not.

Again, as I just said, anything but God...basically

(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No. No, you have not. And if you have, then it would be extraordinarily easy to get me to stop asking this. All you have to do is copy and paste your previous response. Less than thirty seconds' effort, and we can all move on.

What do you think that the theory of evolution says, Call? What is your understanding of the theory? Not "what specific examples of evolution do you want to argue are ridiculous?", not "what is your opinion on the reptile-bird issue?", not "what do you think is wrong with the fossil record?". Just "what do you think the word 'evolution' means?"

Dude, let me break this down to you...because there you go again, calling my understanding of the theory into question. It is not that damn difficult of a concept to understand. I just don't believe in the theory...point blank, PERIOD.

Now, if God doesn't exist, we still have to explain the diversity in life, don't we? Well, the only way life can be this diverse (on naturalism) is for animals to begin producing other "kinds" of animals. Bro, there is just NO FUCKIN' WAY OUT OF IT. If there was a time that mammals didn't exist...yet, they exist now...then it logically follows that whatever was "there" before the mammals, eventually started producing mammals. And this is exactly what I DON'T believe occurred.

Now, this is where you come in and say "BUT THATS NOT EVOLUTION, YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT EVOLUTION IS. EVOLUTION DOESN'T SAY THAT" and blah blah blah.

The only way you can explain the diversity of life without God, is for you to come up with some dumbass theory of animals, whether suddenly OR gradually, beginning to producing different "kinds" of animals. And no, we don't need to get into any discussions on what "kind" means in this context, because if "kind" had no meaning, then the archaeopteryx (reptile-bird crap) would have never been significant, would it?

So in a nut shell, my understanding of evolution is that the theory states animals were producing different "kinds" of animals....such as reptile-bird. That is my understanding of the theory...and if you want to say the typical pre-orchestrated quip of "You just don't understand evolution", then I will keep turning your attention to the archaeopteryx, which evolutionists claimed was the missing link between reptiles and birds.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2016, 10:43 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 03:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 03:12 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Any prediction that evolutionary theory makes are all geared towards micro evolution. Make a prediction regarding macro evolution, you know, reptile-bird stuff. Whatcha got there?

Nothing.


Not nothing. Tiktaalik
.

The algorithm that is evolution predicts the diversity we see.

Imperfect replication and differential reproduction make evolution certain. Mathematically certain.

I have no use for you, cat man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2016, 10:44 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 03:30 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Now I'm uniformed on these views, are bats still apart of the bird "kind?"

It depends on how you classify "birds".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2016, 10:46 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(21-02-2016 10:44 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 03:30 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Now I'm uniformed on these views, are bats still apart of the bird "kind?"

It depends on how you classify "birds".




See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2016, 11:09 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Repetition snipped for time constraints.

(21-02-2016 10:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Just don't forget to account for ring species.

If it isn't going to get me what I am asking for (reptile-bird kind of shit), then it has no relevance.

It is extraordinarily relevant. Your inability to appreciate this does not change the facts.

(21-02-2016 10:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You really don't understand what the theory of evolution actually says, do you? At no point will a parent give birth to a different species of child.

Um, I am advocating AGAINST macro transformations such as reptile-bird. In your example, you gave examples of bird-bird. That is almost a borderline straw man attack.

It's really not.

Again, you do not understand what the theory of evolution actually says.

(21-02-2016 10:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No. You use partial evidence, deliberately ignoring all else that is presented, in order to make the case appear weaker than it actually is.

So you admit that the case is weak for evolution Thumbsup

You cannot read.

(21-02-2016 10:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So basically, "chemicals do what chemicals do"...ok, go in a lab, and get all of the chemicals you need...and create LIFE from nonlife.

"All right, Wright. If flight isn't bird magic, why hasn't anyone invented an airplane yet?"

(21-02-2016 10:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I challenge you to give me one REAL LIFE example of a said "code" to not be the result of an intelligent mind (programmer).

DNA.

And no, before you respond: that is not circular, as this is the null hypothesis until the existence or requirement of an intelligent agency responsible for its creation is established.

It is not.

(21-02-2016 10:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No shit, Captain Obvious. The cells in your brain aren't conscious, yet "you" are conscious...so what is "you"?

I would advise you to look up integrated information theory and emergent behaviors, but I know that you will not bother and would not understand it if you did.

(21-02-2016 10:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So, there is no infinite regression OR First Cause?

Quite.

I note the lack of actual objection. You seem to be unable to do anything other than ridicule when confronted by fact.

(21-02-2016 10:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What do you think that the theory of evolution says, Call? What is your understanding of the theory? Not "what specific examples of evolution do you want to argue are ridiculous?", not "what is your opinion on the reptile-bird issue?", not "what do you think is wrong with the fossil record?". Just "what do you think the word 'evolution' means?"

<irrelevant incoherence snipped>

So in a nut shell, my understanding of evolution is that the theory states animals were producing different "kinds" of animals.

This is wrong.

You do not understand evolution.

(21-02-2016 10:42 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  and if you want to say the typical pre-orchestrated quip of "You just don't understand evolution", then I will keep turning your attention to the archaeopteryx, which evolutionists claimed was the missing link between reptiles and birds.

And still does not constitute an example of any animal doing otherwise than producing another animal of its own species.

You do not understand evolution.

(21-02-2016 10:43 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 03:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Not nothing. Tiktaalik
.

I have no use for you, cat man.

And you are incapable of actually dealing with - or, likely, even understanding - the evidence presented for it.

This is pathetic.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
21-02-2016, 04:33 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
What the fuck kind is this?

[Image: platypus.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
21-02-2016, 04:49 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Hey, Call, can you show me the exact point where red stops being red and starts being green in the following image?

Don't worry, I'll wait.

[Image: linear_fill.gif]

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like undergroundp's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: