Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2016, 10:45 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-02-2016 10:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(26-02-2016 01:40 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The theory of evolution is still not equivalent to "birds evolved from reptiles", and your attempts to equivocate between the two remain fallacious.

Yet, archaeopteryx was supposed to be the "transitional fossil" of a reptile..evolving into...a bird.

*sigh* children, children, children No

You do realize that this doesn't actually address my point, yes?

(27-02-2016 10:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(26-02-2016 01:40 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Because you do not understand evolution.

Here is what I do understand; Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, snakes produce snakes.

Anything contrary to that..no, I don't understand it Big Grin

Yes. We have been over this before. This is not a coherent objection to the theory.

You do not understand evolution.

(27-02-2016 10:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I've been engaging in conversation, actually. I've addressed your points, and made counter-points.

No, you really haven't. Perhaps you think that is what you have been doing, but - and I am not attempting to be insulting here, just blunt - your posts have little to nothing to do with what they are ostensibly in response to. You keep running off on tangents that utterly fail to address the issue in hand, then claiming that this constitutes a response. Whenever you aren't off on a tangent, you are simply saying "you can't make me be rational".

This is not a conversation. This is a six-year-old on double cappuccino sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming at the top of their lungs.

(27-02-2016 10:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  "I" am not included in that "us". So the "evidence" doesn't tell me anything.

It does, actually. Evidence and logic are not based on your opinion, and the data supports evolution whether or not you like it.

Of course, we can't make you understand, but that's rather beside the point.

"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
27-02-2016, 12:26 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-02-2016 10:45 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You do realize that this doesn't actually address my point, yes?

It does. You believe reptiles evolved into birds, I don't. That is MY point.

(27-02-2016 10:45 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes. We have been over this before.

Yeah, and the fact still remains; An animal will only produce what it is, not what it isn't.

(27-02-2016 10:45 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is not a coherent objection to the theory.

It is. If you believe that the origins of a "dog" stems from an "animal" that wasn't a "dog"; and I am saying "dogs produce dogs"....that IS a coherent objection to the theory.

Animals produce what they are, not what they aren't. So if you believe a dog came from a nondog, my belief is CONTRARY to that...so it is a coherent objection. My objection is "no it didn't"...and yours is "yes it did". So if my objection isn't coherent, then neither is your argument.

(27-02-2016 10:45 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You do not understand evolution.

My understanding: Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. That is my understanding how this "stuff" works, and until I see something contrary to that, I will continue with my "understanding".

(27-02-2016 10:45 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, you really haven't. Perhaps you think that is what you have been doing, but - and I am not attempting to be insulting here, just blunt - your posts have little to nothing to do with what they are ostensibly in response to. You keep running off on tangents that utterly fail to address the issue in hand, then claiming that this constitutes a response. Whenever you aren't off on a tangent, you are simply saying "you can't make me be rational".

Then in a nut shell, we have differences in opinion on the content/quality of my posts.

(27-02-2016 10:45 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is not a conversation. This is a six-year-old on double cappuccino sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming at the top of their lungs.

Dogs produce dogs..

(27-02-2016 10:45 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It does, actually. Evidence and logic are not based on your opinion, and the data supports evolution whether or not you like it.

I've already addressed the "data/evidence".

(27-02-2016 10:45 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Of course, we can't make you understand, but that's rather beside the point.

Cats produce cats...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2016, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2016 12:40 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-02-2016 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Cats produce cats...

Horses (64 chromosomes) make horses and donkeys (62 chromosomes) make donkeys but a horse and a donkey make mules (63 chromosomes).

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2016, 12:41 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-02-2016 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  It does.

No. It doesn't.

Once again, you don't get to tell your opponent what their argument is.

(27-02-2016 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  An animal will only produce what it is, not what it isn't.

We have also been over this before.

Animals produce offspring of their own species with variation. Given enough time, enough variations build up that a given animal cannot be considered the same species as its ancestor, without, at any point, any animal having to give birth to anything but its own species. Because, ultimately, "species" is a system of classification, not some sort of mystical barrier that prevents variation in reproduction from occurring.

"Nuh-uh" is not a sufficient argument to refute this.

(27-02-2016 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Then in a nut shell, we have differences in opinion on the content/quality of my posts.

Yes. We certainly do.

(27-02-2016 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I've already addressed the "data/evidence".

By sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming, yes.

"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
27-02-2016, 01:14 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-02-2016 12:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No. It doesn't.

Once again, you don't get to tell your opponent what their argument is.

Dude, you are beginning to become pathetic, and I am growing increasingly tired of you accusing me of being ignorant of ANYTHING regarding evolution when I am saying the exact FUCKIN thing that traditional evolutionists have been saying.

Now, I said "You believe reptiles evolved into birds". That is what I said, and thats what I've BEEN sayin...

Above, you are making it seem as if that by me saying "you believe reptiles evolved into birds", that I somehow placed a belief on you that you don't hold, yet.. Chas said (post #858): "the evidence tells us that we and the birds both evolved from a common reptile-like ancestor"

Look at what I said in the bold letters above...and look at what Chas said in the bold letters above. It is the SAME FUCKIN THING.

Me: "You believe reptiles evolved into birds".

Chas: "the evidence tells us that we and the birds both evolved from a common reptile-like ancestor"

It is the same FUCKIN' thing...you didn't say anything to Chas when he said it, but yet when I say it, it is time to bring put on the evolution patrol uniform. If you didn't agree with what Chas said (which is the same thing that I said), then why aren't you using some of that riled up energy on him?

It is some inconsistent, disingenuous, double standarded BULLSHIT Angry

(27-02-2016 12:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Animals produce offspring of their own species with variation. Given enough time, enough variations build up that a given animal cannot be considered the same species as its ancestor, without, at any point, any animal having to give birth to anything but its own species. Because, ultimately, "species" is a system of classification, not some sort of mystical barrier that prevents variation in reproduction from occurring.

No problems there. A wolf and a coyote are different species, but they are the same kind of animal. Clearly. That "changing of the species" is completely different than a damn reptile evolving into a damn bird. Those are two completely different concepts and that is why Creationists invented the term "macro" evolution (large scale) and "micro" evolution (small scale)...the terms were invented to differentiate the the two.

No one is denying the micro changes, you know, the kind of changes that you are talking about above, and also the kind of changes that you gave in your piss-poor analogy of evolution about the birds? Remember? When you gave the example of the evolutionary changes in the birds as they adapted to their environment over a period of time? Which is also something that I agreed with? And which also ISN'T the same concept as the reptile-bird bullshit?

No one is denying that kind of evolution (micro)...the problem is, evolutionists want to conflate BOTH terms/concepts...they want to conflate the micro with the macro..and that is where someone like me steps in and says "Not so fast, Spartacus..where do you get the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird", and from there, the debate begins..

(27-02-2016 12:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  "Nuh-uh" is not a sufficient argument to refute this.

And "Ah uh" is not a sufficient argument to support it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2016, 01:27 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-02-2016 01:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dude, you are beginning to become pathetic, and I am growing increasingly tired of you accusing me of being ignorant of ANYTHING regarding evolution when I am saying the exact FUCKIN thing that traditional evolutionists have been saying.

Once again, this is you going off on a tangent. This is not me taking issue with the idea that reptiles evolved into birds. It is me pointing out that "reptiles evolved into birds" is a conclusion reached as a result of the theory of evolution. It is not the theory itself.

Slow down, take a breath, and try to keep the various points straight in your head. Your habit of mixing up discussion threads is making this even more pointless than it needs to be.

(27-02-2016 01:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No problems there. A wolf and a coyote are different species, but they are the same kind of animal. Clearly. That "changing of the species" is completely different than a damn reptile evolving into a damn bird. Those are two completely different concepts and that is why Creationists invented the term "macro" evolution (large scale) and "micro" evolution (small scale)...the terms were invented to differentiate the the two.

The only difference between the two is scale.

Your personal incredulity does not change this.

(27-02-2016 01:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  No one is denying that kind of evolution (micro)...the problem is, evolutionists want to conflate BOTH terms/concepts...they want to conflate the micro with the macro..and that is where someone like me steps in and says "Not so fast, Spartacus..where do you get the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird", and from there, the debate begins..

Yes. And when the fossil record and DNA analysis are brought into play, the debate ends.

"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
27-02-2016, 01:33 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-02-2016 01:14 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-02-2016 12:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No. It doesn't.

Once again, you don't get to tell your opponent what their argument is.

Dude, you are beginning to become pathetic, and I am growing increasingly tired of you accusing me of being ignorant of ANYTHING regarding evolution when I am saying the exact FUCKIN thing that traditional evolutionists have been saying.

Now, I said "You believe reptiles evolved into birds". That is what I said, and thats what I've BEEN sayin...

Above, you are making it seem as if that by me saying "you believe reptiles evolved into birds", that I somehow placed a belief on you that you don't hold, yet.. Chas said (post #858): "the evidence tells us that we and the birds both evolved from a common reptile-like ancestor"

Look at what I said in the bold letters above...and look at what Chas said in the bold letters above. It is the SAME FUCKIN THING.

Me: "You believe reptiles evolved into birds".

Chas: "the evidence tells us that we and the birds both evolved from a common reptile-like ancestor"

It is the same FUCKIN' thing...you didn't say anything to Chas when he said it, but yet when I say it, it is time to bring put on the evolution patrol uniform. If you didn't agree with what Chas said (which is the same thing that I said), then why aren't you using some of that riled up energy on him?

It is some inconsistent, disingenuous, double standarded BULLSHIT Angry

(27-02-2016 12:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Animals produce offspring of their own species with variation. Given enough time, enough variations build up that a given animal cannot be considered the same species as its ancestor, without, at any point, any animal having to give birth to anything but its own species. Because, ultimately, "species" is a system of classification, not some sort of mystical barrier that prevents variation in reproduction from occurring.

No problems there. A wolf and a coyote are different species, but they are the same kind of animal. Clearly. That "changing of the species" is completely different than a damn reptile evolving into a damn bird. Those are two completely different concepts and that is why Creationists invented the term "macro" evolution (large scale) and "micro" evolution (small scale)...the terms were invented to differentiate the the two.

No one is denying the micro changes, you know, the kind of changes that you are talking about above, and also the kind of changes that you gave in your piss-poor analogy of evolution about the birds? Remember? When you gave the example of the evolutionary changes in the birds as they adapted to their environment over a period of time? Which is also something that I agreed with? And which also ISN'T the same concept as the reptile-bird bullshit?

No one is denying that kind of evolution (micro)...the problem is, evolutionists want to conflate BOTH terms/concepts...they want to conflate the micro with the macro..and that is where someone like me steps in and says "Not so fast, Spartacus..where do you get the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird", and from there, the debate begins..

Your insistence This is the same fucking thing is just demonstrating over and over how, whatever factors at large, you don't understand it. You either just as you said want to dismiss it so much that you don't even grasp differences.

People have the mental ability to grasp things they don't agree with still. That's not any leap in any human mind. Why you don't though, is pretty interesting.

"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
27-02-2016, 01:51 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2016 04:29 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-02-2016 12:36 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(27-02-2016 12:26 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Cats produce cats...

Horses (64 chromosomes) make horses and donkeys (62 chromosomes) make donkeys but a horse and a donkey make mules (63 chromosomes).

Humans (and all animals) produce all sorts of genetic variants ... most of which are not viable. Some, (such as trisomy 21, known as "Down's Syndrome) are viable and can reproduce. This fucking ignoramus not only knows NOTHING about science or Evolution, also knows nothing about DNA. All he's doing here is reinforcing the idea that religious fucktards will go to ANY length to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay to try to show their idiot religions are somehow, true. Wail of the Child is a poster child for how NOT to share one's ideas, (religious or otherwise).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-02-2016, 02:40 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-02-2016 01:27 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Once again, this is you going off on a tangent. This is not me taking issue with the idea that reptiles evolved into birds. It is me pointing out that "reptiles evolved into birds" is a conclusion reached as a result of the theory of evolution. It is not the theory itself.

Dude, if I don't believe that reptiles evolved in to birds, then does it really freakin' matter rather or not the phenomena in question is a conclusion reached as a result of the theory, or whether it is the theory itself?

I reject evolution as a THEORY, which means that I reject anything/everything that is said to be a RESULT OF THE THEORY.

If you told me that a house caught on fire in 1879, and as a result 12 chickens were killed...and I tell you "Bro, I don't believe the house ever caught on fire"....wouldn't that also suggest that I don't believe that 12 chickens were killed as a result of the fire, if I don't believe that there was a house fire in the first place?

And not only that, but that STILL doesn't even negate my point, because the theory states that reptile-bird kind of transformations are possible...according to the theory, it happened, and it CAN happen...and I am saying that it DIDN'T happen, and it CAN'T happen.

So either way, I reject the theory. It DID NOT HAPPEN. Point blank, PERIOD.

(27-02-2016 12:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Slow down, take a breath, and try to keep the various points straight in your head. Your habit of mixing up discussion threads is making this even more pointless than it needs to be.

You've made the most unnecessary distinction in the history of unnecessary distinctions. I don't know what you think or what point you THOUGHT you were making...but the bottom line is; I don't believe in evolution. I reject it as a theory. I reject it as organically possible.

Now if that isn't good enough for you, then too damn bad.

(27-02-2016 12:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The only difference between the two is scale.

Sure, according to the unproven theory.

(27-02-2016 12:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Your personal incredulity does not change this.

It is less about my personal incredulity, and more about you or anyone else failing to provide adequate scientific evidence to support your religion.

(27-02-2016 12:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes. And when the fossil record and DNA analysis are brought into play, the debate ends.

So the theory is based on a fossil record that is incomplete, and similar genetic structures that could very well mean common designer?

Got it Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2016, 02:48 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(27-02-2016 02:40 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Dude, if I don't believe that reptiles evolved in to birds, then does it really freakin' matter rather or not the phenomena in question is a conclusion reached as a result of the theory, or whether it is the theory itself?

Yes.

It is the difference between saying "your math is wrong" and "I reject mathematics as a concept".

This is not complicated.

(27-02-2016 02:40 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  And not only that, but that STILL doesn't even negate my point, because the theory states that reptile-bird kind of transformations are possible...according to the theory, it happened, and it CAN happen...and I am saying that it DIDN'T happen, and it CAN'T happen.

And the only justification that you have presented for this is your own personal incredulity.

(27-02-2016 02:40 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So the theory is based on a fossil record that is incomplete

Again, logical deduction exists. The fact that we do not have literally every skeleton from a given line of descent is irrelevant, and your continued insistence on pretending that it is only makes your argument appear still more asinine.

(27-02-2016 02:40 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  and similar genetic structures that could very well mean common designer?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: