Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2016, 10:48 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(22-02-2016 04:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It's really not.

You seem to have a serious issue with keeping various topics of discussion straight. Or, more likely, you simply don't care to, and hope to confuse the conversation by rapidly switching between points and acting as though you never made the argument which is being addressed.

This is known as the It is a pathetically transparent attempt at avoiding the issues you cannot find a coherent response to.

No problems at all. In practically every post I've made regarding evolution, I am always mentioning the reptile-bird thing. Nothing new. If anything, I am the one keeping the focal point on the lack of evidence for this "voodoo" science stuff you guys have going on.

(22-02-2016 04:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And the gallop continues.

Dude, you were the one that first mentioned planets. I only asked a question about it AFTER you brought it into the conversation...Yet, "the gallop continues"?

Laugh out load

(22-02-2016 04:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  As per usual, I will be erasing the schizophrenic rambling sections of your post. I do not care about your attempts to obfuscate the argument in hand.

Cool, because if you noticed, I've already began to condense your posts, anyway..and thereby keeping the nonsense to a minimum.

(22-02-2016 04:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes, it is. DNA is chemical in nature. There is nothing about DNA which is anything other than chemical, and no indication of intelligent intervention in its formation.

Again, DNA is encoded information/instructions..and has been likened to computer codes. This FACT has been acknowledged by both believers and unbelievers alike, as was proven to you. Unless you can explain why computer codes require intelligent design, and genetic codes DON'T require intelligent design, you are committing the taxi cab fallacy...which is as obvious as the nose on your face.

The DNA code is in fact more complex than the computer codes that it is compared to...so the only reason you deny intelligent design as it relates to DNA, is because you realize that by acknowledging the fact that DNA requires intelligent design, your worldview will be tarnished.

(22-02-2016 04:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The null hypothesis, then, is that there was none.

If the premises are false, then the conclusion that follows is also false. Your premises is "there is nothing about DNA which is anything other than chemical".

That is just a false premise. DNA is ecoded information/instructions on a molecular level in the form of four letter digital codes.

Now I don't know what more you need, but then again, you've got an ax to grind here, obviously.

(22-02-2016 04:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is the Gish gallop in its purest form. Besides that, none of the issues you name are actually issues for anyone who understands the topics in question.

Cool. So explain to me the origins of all of those things mentioned, then (consciousness, life, universe, language, specified compexity).

Lets see how much "understanding" you actually have. Using science/nature...explain to me the origins of all those things listed above. Just so you know; everytime you make those typical bullshit statements like "we can do this...we know this...we understand this"...just know you will be called out on it.

If you can't provide the explanation on origins, then you are a day late, and a dollar short.

(22-02-2016 04:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The "entropy problem" only requires a seventh-grade understanding of physics, for Christ's sake. The fact that you actually consider it a "problem" is simply embarrassing.

Says the person that obviously don't know what the "entropy problem" entails.

(22-02-2016 04:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Ignoring the fossil record does not make it go away.

Ignoring the fact that you don't have a complete fossil record, despite the millions upon millions of fossils that exist...does not make the fact that you DON'T have it go away.

(22-02-2016 04:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That is not begging the question. You do not understand what that fallacy actually says, any more than you understood the point being made.

Hmm. Let's see..I said "She showed an image at which she implied that macro evolution is similar to the image. But that is begging the question, because macro evolution is what needs to be proven true".

In other words, the unproven conclusion was concluded in the premise. She implied "evolution is true in the same way this image is true." But evolution has to be proven true FIRST, before you can compare it to other "true" things. That was my point..now compare that to what the fallacy of begging the question is..

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

That is exactly what she did. And that is also exactly why I responded to her by basically saying "Do the same thing with living organisms that you did with the image"...because by "doing the same thing", you would be proving macro evolution is true and therefore the comparison with the image would be valid.

You can keep this "you dont understand" shit up as long as you want, because apparently, YOU don't know what the fallacy means..just like you were WRONG about the whole "DNA encoded" thing.

(22-02-2016 04:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I would point out how you are contradicting yourself now - if God worked "with time", there rather had to be time at the time - but I honestly don't care.

*opens up bags of tricks, and pulls out "simultaneous causation" and hands it to him*

That is the point, Spartacus...God is the cause of the entire temporal chain..his initial "action" was simultaneous with him acting in the first moment in time. It was simultaneous. One did not precede the other. God created time, WHILE acting in time (his initial act was the first moment of time, thereby, allowing him to act in time).

(22-02-2016 04:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which you have not established. You have not even established that this is a coherent idea, let alone that it is possible or required.

*Opens up bag of tricks and hands him "infinity problem"* A First Cause is necessary, and this is something that can be shown, demonstrated, proven, validated, conceived, and any other synonymn you want to add.

(22-02-2016 04:14 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You continue to ignore the arguments presented to you. The parts that you do not ignore, you utterly fail to understand. But this is not surprising, as you appear to be completely incapable of keeping your own argument coherent, or even understanding the most basic principles of logic.

This is just getting sad, really.

Embrace Jesus Christ and Christianity, and hang with me for a while. We'd make a great Christian Apologetic team. We'd get you a nice, Christian woman for you to marry...and we will do our part for the Kingdom as we patiently wait for Christs' return.

Won't you join us?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 11:38 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-02-2016 10:48 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No problems at all. In practically every post I've made regarding evolution, I am always mentioning the reptile-bird thing.

Yes. Because you think that it serves to distract from the direct and explicit answers being directed to your questions.

It doesn't.

Quote:Unless you can explain why computer codes require intelligent design, and genetic codes DON'T require intelligent design, you are committing the taxi cab fallacy...which is as obvious as the nose on your face.

We have been over this. Aside from the point regarding confusing figurative language for literal fact, which you seem determined to ignore, DNA is just chemical. It is complex, but still just chemical.

As for how it comes to be without intelligent intervention, tell me. What about the chemical makeup of DNA do you believe makes it impossible to form through natural reactions?

Quote:The DNA code is in fact more complex than the computer codes that it is compared to...so the only reason you deny intelligent design as it relates to DNA, is because you realize that by acknowledging the fact that DNA requires intelligent design, your worldview will be tarnished.

No. It is because complexity does not require intelligence. It does not even begin to imply intelligence.

We know that computer code is the product of an intelligent agency because there is no natural process by which computers are created. It has nothing to do with complexity. There is simply no natural chemical reaction which results in the formation of a functioning motherboard, because the chemicals involved do not react in the same way that those in DNA do.

Amino acids form naturally. Processors do not.

Quote:If the premises are false, then the conclusion that follows is also false. Your premises is "there is nothing about DNA which is anything other than chemical".

That is just a false premise. DNA is ecoded information/instructions on a molecular level in the form of four letter digital codes.

And yet - now, try to stay with me on this one, Call - it is still utterly, entirely, indisputably chemical, because information content is a property of matter, not matter itself. DNA is not made of information. It contains it.

I repeat: there is nothing about DNA that is anything other than chemical, any more than ink is anything more than water and dye.

Quote:Cool. So explain to me the origins of all of those things mentioned, then (consciousness, life, universe, language, specified compexity).

Gish gallop.

Stop trying to change the subject. This thread is about evolution. If you have questions about other topics, take them to another thread. Or, perhaps, the boxing ring.

Quote:Ignoring the fact that you don't have a complete fossil record, despite the millions upon millions of fossils that exist...does not make the fact that you DON'T have it go away.

Doubling down on your insistence that deductive reasoning does not exist, I see. Bold move.

Quote:Hmm. Let's see..I said "She showed an image at which she implied that macro evolution is similar to the image. But that is begging the question, because macro evolution is what needs to be proven true".

In other words, the unproven conclusion was concluded in the premise.

No. You simply failed to understand what was said to you.

The image in question was directly responding to your repeated failures to appreciate what the theory of evolution actually says with regards to speciation - the "reptile/bird" issue that you are so obsessed with. You have argued that we must see reptiles giving birth to birds for this to be accepted, but this is not what the theory of evolution argues. It states that we will observe a smooth gradient between species, with no animal giving birth to anything but one of its own species - and yet, at the end, we have completely different animals.

This is what the image illustrated: there is a smooth gradient between green and red. At no point is any shade succeeded by one of a different color - and yet we get from red to green regardless.

This is not circular. It does not assume that the theory of evolution is true. It is an elaboration on what an argument actually says - an elaboration which you sorely needed, but which you have also promptly ignored.

Quote:And that is also exactly why I responded to her by basically saying "Do the same thing with living organisms that you did with the image"...because by "doing the same thing", you would be proving macro evolution is true and therefore the comparison with the image would be valid.

Fossil record.

Quote:You can keep this "you dont understand" shit up as long as you want

Yes. Yes, I can.

Quote:God created time, WHILE acting in time (his initial act was the first moment of time, thereby, allowing him to act in time).

Oh, look. An utterly incoherent statement. It's almost as if this type of argument is so eminently predictable that I knew this would happen pages ago.

Quote:A First Cause is necessary, and this is something that can be shown, demonstrated, proven, validated, conceived, and any other synonymn you want to add.

Then do it.

Quote:Embrace Jesus Christ and Christianity, and hang with me for a while. We'd make a great Christian Apologetic team. We'd get you a nice, Christian woman for you to marry...and we will do our part for the Kingdom as we patiently wait for Christs' return.

Won't you join us?

No.

"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
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
23-02-2016, 01:17 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-02-2016 11:38 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2016, 01:23 PM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2016 01:26 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(22-02-2016 11:16 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 10:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your silly straw man arguments demonstrate the you really don't understand the theory of evolution.

Reptiles evolved into birds, right? Isn't that evolution? Laugh out load

(22-02-2016 10:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  If we had an unbroken line of offspring and parent from any modern bird back millions of years lined up side by side, you would see no appreciable difference between any two adjacent ones.

But as you move back in time, each one will be a little less bird-like and a little more reptilian.

Right, and I am saying that no matter how much you want to go back in time, the bird will have always been a bird, and never reptilian.

(22-02-2016 10:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  At no point can you point to an adjacent pair and claim one is a reptile and the other a bird.
That is consistent with all of the evidence while your argument about 'kinds' isn't even scientific.

You can explain it any way you want to. It doesn't change the fact that the theory is that reptiles evolved into birds. Point blank, period. I said the same thing that you said, only without the technical fluff and feather bullshit that typically accompanys every word that the evolutionist uses when they are speaking about their "religion".

I don't get what you think you're stating here. It really shows you don't understand the concept of evolution still. Not that you don't believe it but you're so against that it can be explained because of your perceived flaws you don't seem to get it.

This stupid "point blank, period" line is exactly the type of reasoning and understanding that leads droves of people to actually think it's profound to question, ah if monkies "turned into" humans, why are there still monkies? Well it's because monkies didn't turn into humans point blank, period. That's just a misunderstanding fueled statement that propagates further ignorance on the topic.

Do you think species are really really a "species" as some significant defining marker or do you think the terms like dog/bird/species are just markers of description? Which would be closer to what you think?

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
23-02-2016, 07:04 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-02-2016 01:17 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(23-02-2016 11:38 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No.

Thumbsup

And, once again, you utterly fail to provide any sort of coherent response.

I'm glad to see that you've stopped pretending to put any thought into your posts, at least.

"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
24-02-2016, 02:21 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(23-02-2016 07:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And, once again, you utterly fail to provide any sort of coherent response.

You were given a thumbsup after rejecting salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ. Take your "thumbsup", and continue to live your Christ-less life.

(23-02-2016 07:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm glad to see that you've stopped pretending to put any thought into your posts, at least.

You can't fade me, Sparky Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2016, 02:47 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(24-02-2016 02:21 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You were given a thumbsup after rejecting salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ.

I'm sure that this had nothing to do with your demonstrable inability to actually defend any of your nonsense arguments about why I should actually do that.

"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
25-02-2016, 03:31 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(24-02-2016 02:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm sure that this had nothing to do with your demonstrable inability to actually defend any of your nonsense arguments about why I should actually do that.

*Reaches up to the cabinet and pulls out a can of ass whooping called "A Positive Case for the Resurrection/Christianity".*

If you wanted a serving of this, all you had to do was ask Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2016, 03:33 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(25-02-2016 03:31 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  *Reaches up to the cabinet and pulls out a can of ass whooping called "A Positive Case for the Resurrection/Christianity".*

If you wanted a serving of this, all you had to do was ask Big Grin

Still wasting time? If you have a point to make, do so.

"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
25-02-2016, 03:39 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(25-02-2016 03:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Still wasting time? If you have a point to make, do so.

Are you against Christianity as a worldview? If so, why. And if not, what is stopping you from becoming a Christian?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: