|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
I DONT KNOW, why we are here, I dont know how we got here, I dont know what our purpose is, and I dont know what happens after death,,
I dont make assumptions like you guys... |
I'm not making any of those assumptions either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
I DONT KNOW, why we are here, I dont know how we got here, I dont know what our purpose is, and I dont know what happens after death,,
I dont make assumptions like you guys... |
I'm not making any of those assumptions either. |
cool  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
I DONT KNOW, why we are here, I dont know how we got here, I dont know what our purpose is, and I dont know what happens after death,,
I dont make assumptions like you guys... |
I'm not making any of those assumptions either. |
cool |
Who are you accusing of making those assumptions? (and ranting so vehemently against) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
I DONT KNOW, why we are here, I dont know how we got here, I dont know what our purpose is, and I dont know what happens after death,,
I dont make assumptions like you guys... |
I'm not making any of those assumptions either. |
cool |
Who are you accusing of making those assumptions? (and ranting so vehemently against) |
ed ,mind me too, AND THE REST OF THE DAWKINS STREET brats! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ni(c)k
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Evolution is happening, creation is a theory of where evolution came from? Two different things? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IncognitoHFX
Joined: 06 May 2007
Location: Yeongtong, Suwon
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| itaewonguy wrote: |
I DONT KNOW, why we are here, I dont know how we got here, I dont know what our purpose is, and I dont know what happens after death,,
I dont make assumptions like you guys... |
I'm not making any of those assumptions either. |
cool |
Who are you accusing of making those assumptions? (and ranting so vehemently against) |
ed ,mind me too, AND THE REST OF THE DAWKINS STREET brats! |
I've read three of Dawkin's books, and he never once claimed to know why were are here, how we got here, what our purpose is or what happened after death. Evolutionists don't make those assumptions, however, we believe that if there is any venue through which to answer those questions, it's that of science.
Not a creation myth derived from two thousand year old animal hydes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy, do you understand the difference between "I don't believe in a god" and "I believe there is no god"? Your misunderstanding of this concept seems to be the basis of your argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| They have fossils going back 3.5 billion years, 40 million is nothing. And these oldest fossils are still identical to today... |
Claim. Evidence?
That we find many fossils that fairly resemble modern forms is neither surpising to evolution nor fatal to the theory.
To quote Stephen Gould at the McLean v Arkansas trial:
GOULD: Equilibrium. I did leave out a point there. That most species, successful species living in large populations, do not change. In fact, are fairly stable in the fossil record and live for a long time. The average duration of marine invertebrate species was five to ten million years. During that time they may fluctuate mildly in morphology, but most of them � I don't say there aren't exceptions � most of them don't change very much. That's what we would expect for large, successful, well-adapted populations. And that's the equilibrium part. By punctuation, we refer to those events of speciation where descendent species rather rapidly in geological perspectives split off from their ancestors. And that's the second point.
http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt_p_gould.html
| Quote: |
| Now, only one in about a million fossils dug up is of something new. This tells us that we have come to the end of the inventory. We've discovered almost everything. |
For the guy who says there are 101 explanations for a scientific claim, you've not considered other possibilities? Would you have a chart about fossil finds, now vs then? If you ask people researching the evolution of whales or birds they might have a very different picture. Other than assertion, do you have any evidence to back this claim?
| Quote: |
If evolution were true, 99% of the fossil record would be made up of transitional forms. But it isn't. Most of it is made up of stuff still alive and identical today. |
99%? Identical? Wow. Got a peer reviewed scientific reference to support this claim? You're not going to supply Junior's fishing lure images are you?
http://forbiddenmusic.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/atlas-of-creation-by-harun-yahya/
Also, could you define "transitional fossil" for us? You're using this term a lot and I have no idea if you're using it as a scientist would use it or the crock-o-duck form. Here's a definition from talkorigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
| Quote: |
| Evolutionists will have you believe highly complex forms evolved quickly and spontaneously, with no intermediates, in what they term "the Cambrian explosion". |
Define complex. Define quickly. Who says there were no intermediates? And spontaneously? Would you have one quote from an evolutionary scientist making this claim?
| Quote: |
| Having a mosaic of features does not prove evolution. The Platypus for example. Is that a mammal becoming a reptile? |
Having a mosaic of features and finding no form earlier with such features and finding forms at a later time with better adapted features is the very definition of a transitional fossil. That some species, such as the platypus, retain primitive characteristics is not a refutation. Evolution does not mean all earlier forms go extinct. What works in one niche may well keep on working in that niche, however, a mutation allows part of the species with that mutation to take advantage of an unfilled niche and evolve there. If they're not competing in the same niche, the new species won't cause the extinction of the old species.
Theories make predictions about what we should see. We should see the above. We see the above. This is evidence for evolution.
| Quote: |
| I[f you mean that some species have only been found in "X" type or age of rock, there are 101 possible explanations for this. It does not automatically mean they evolved more recently. It just means they became more abundant recently and thus more fossilized. As a particular environment changes, the species within it flourish or become scarce. Some become extinct. |
Sure. That's possible. Just as it's possible Santa left you the big jim camper under the tree. Science isn't, however, a just-so story. If you would like to claim horses were very very rare and then suddenly there was a horse explosion after 300 million years of them not doing much and there was an explosion of thousands of other modern animals, then you need to establish how and why this happened. Evolution explains it quite nicely, however, with loads of supporting, interlocking evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| Because any rock where rabbits are found is quickly labelled as "not precambrian" by evolutionists. Rock is assigned ages depending on the fossils found in them. |
Could you cite a scientific source that rock ages are dated absolutely by the fossils found in them? Rocks are dated by radioactive decay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
| Quote: |
fact is, the geologic column as sketched by evolutionists does not exist virtually anywhere on earth. In the 0.4% of the earth's surface that it does, individual layers therein are still admitted to be incomplete.
The rest of the column is made up of large swathes of missing strata or strata mysteriously in all the wrong places. |
Claim? Evidence?
| Quote: |
| Note also, that in supposedly the oldest strata, only bottom-dwelling simple lifeforms are to be found. Isn't this naturally the case? the smallest and simplest bottom dwelling organisms are first to be covered in any sudden fossil-forming event. |
Right. So baby rabbits, baby horses, etc would suffer this fate. We should see fossils also sorted that way. But we don't. Odd. Shouldn't all eggs sink to the same level? But we don't see that either. Eggs from more recent animals are at one level and eggs from older animals are at a deeper level. That's all very odd. Same holds for, oh, insects. Shouldn't we find all flying insects at the same level? But we don't. Odd that.
| Quote: |
| Evolutionism is a religion you don't want to give u |
Define religion. How does evolution fit that definition?
| Quote: |
| and any peice of evidence can be interpreted to fit depending on the bias of the beholder. if need be, just push back the dates by a few million years. |
Dates are not pushed back unless evidence demands it.
| Quote: |
| Similarity does not prove common descent... |
But the similarities in the genetic errors do. See page one, the original post.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:22 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Evolutionism is a religion you don't want to give u |
Define religion. How does evolution fit that definition? |
evolution=bad evolution=religion religion=bad
Although he is wrong about evolution it is nice to see he views religion as something negative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
I DONT KNOW, why we are here, I dont know how we got here, I dont know what our purpose is, and I dont know what happens after death,,
I dont make assumptions like you guys... |
Ergo, until evolution is "proven", it's on equal footing with any other theory.
As such, humans may have evolved, or then again, a bear and a tiger may have retired to a cave to hatch the first Koreans.
BUT WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Until we have proof of evolution, it's just as fair to say that mankind is the illegitimate offspring of a whiskey-fueled hook-up between Ronald McDonald and the Grimace.
BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T KNOW
Is Apollo driving the sun with his chariot? Doesn't look like it, but it just might be that he's always on the side of the sun opposite us. Or maybe he's invisible. Or maybe he's doing it all from the 8th dimension.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW
It's already been mentioned to Itaewonguy, but what he considers an absolutely flummoxing, ball-breaking argument is called:
An appeal to ignorance
That's what he's dishing out, with a little sprinkling of ad hominem in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:05 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
I DONT KNOW, why we are here, I dont know how we got here, I dont know what our purpose is, and I dont know what happens after death,,
I dont make assumptions like you guys... |
Ergo, until evolution is "proven", it's on equal footing with any other theory.
As such, humans may have evolved, or then again, a bear and a tiger may have retired to a cave to hatch the first Koreans.
BUT WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Until we have proof of evolution, it's just as fair to say that mankind is the illegitimate offspring of a whiskey-fueled hook-up between Ronald McDonald and the Grimace.
BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T KNOW
Is Apollo driving the sun with his chariot? Doesn't look like it, but it just might be that he's always on the side of the sun opposite us. Or maybe he's invisible. Or maybe he's doing it all from the 8th dimension.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW
It's already been mentioned to Itaewonguy, but what he considers an absolutely flummoxing, ball-breaking argument is called:
An appeal to ignorance
That's what he's dishing out, with a little sprinkling of ad hominem in between. |
What's the definition of crazy? A rational person does the same thing many times and expects a similar outcome. A crazy person does the same thing and expects a different outcome? Itaewonguy appears to fit that description. He keeps putting forward the same 3 straw men arguments and each time expects a different out come, with the same person even.
First he argues evolution = atheism.
Then he argues since we don't know everything we know nothing.
Then he argues since we don't know something about something all suppositions have equal merit.
Then he comes back to his first point. With the same person. Sometimes within the same day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding Natiulus and the fossil evidence:
http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html#direct
The plaintiff's at Dover presented this excellent summary of transitional fossils. The defense (the ID/creationist team) knew this evidence would be presented, as that's what the discovery phase of a trial is about (each side reveals what evidence they will present). So since the fossil evidence is so amazingly weak (even Hovind claims a first year law student would make easy meat out of the fossil evidence in court) you would think the creationists would bring their big guns to cross examine Padian, give their own testimony and once and for all, while all these people are under oath, really expose the flaws.
But they did nothing.
Why? Well, because perhaps in a venue of evidence and logic like a court, the creationists knew they had no evidence and logic.
Regarding the notion fossils are used to date the rocks:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html
Regarding the geologic column does not exist:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html
What do you have to say to the two points above?
Before you make other factually incorrect claims review:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
"This article does not cite any references or sources."
Hmmm. I might not take this wiki page as a good source.
But let's play:
"Biostratigraphy is the branch of stratigraphy which focuses on correlating and assigning relative ages of rock strata by using the fossil assemblages contained within them."
Consider Alzheimer's. There's a very good way to decide if a person has the disease. Cut the brain open and poke around. But that's expensive and deadly. But we don't have to do that as we can use correlations to determine with a high degree of probability that a person has the disease. If there is a real need to get a 100% definitive answer, of course, you could cut the brain open but why when we know we can be accurate with a small error bar.
Radiometric dating, one might consider, is an expensive procedure. If you can demonstrate by radiometric dating that certain fossils are highly correlated with what the radiometric method will report anyway, why bother? If anyone wished to challenge your claim, one could then radiometrically date the rock, independent of the fossils. But this method has proven reliable and can be independently checked at any time.
Sorry, this is not evidence at all that rock/fossil dating is circular.
I will also note you rather well failed to read that link closely. You will note it's a branch of stratigraphy. Hmmm could that mean there are other methods of stratigraphy? Why yes. We merely have to click on the linked word:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy
Note well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratigraphy#Magnetostratigraphy
Huh.
Note as well this quote regarding the history of Biostratigraphy:
| Quote: |
| This timescale remained a relative scale until the development of radiometric dating, which gave it and the stratigraphy it was based on an absolute time framework, leading to the development of chronostratigraphy. |
See. Way back they had no idea how old the rocks are. They hypothesized that certain layers were old but had no way of knowing the number. Radiometric dating came along, gave an absolute age, and showed them they were largely correct.
I hope you grasp this is not circular reasoning. This is science making a hypothesis and using an independent means of testing that hypothesis and finding out they were pretty much spot on.
Science. Check it out.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:23 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 1. Where did the space for the universe come from? |
Has nothing to do with evolution, but there's far more evidence for a Big Bang than any manmade stories about some big dude making it.
Just to keep track, scientific explanation: 1
Man-dude willing it into existence: 0
2. Where did matter come from?
Has nothing to do with evolution, but there's far more evidence for a Big Bang than any manmade stories about some big dude making it.
Scientific explanation: 2
Man-dude willing it into existence: 0
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Has nothing to do with evolution.
"Laws" attaches an anthropomorphic aspect I don't like. The state and conditions in which matter interacts with itself appears to be determined by its circumstances.
I don't believe science has an explanation for this, but I don't think some man-dude creating the "laws" has any basis whatsoever.
Scientific explanation: 2
Man-dude willing it into existence: 0
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Perfect, if we are to consider the original Greek meaning, means complete.
Nothing appears to be complete. All existence as we know it appears to be in a state of flux.
Scientific explanation: 2
Man-dude willing it into existence: 0 (-1 for silly question since the author claims to be in the middle)
+3 if he can show that matter is perfectly organized
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
I believe this is all based on 3, but energy isn't matter. For example, electricity isn't matter. Splitting an atom produces startling amounts of energy. We wouldn't be here to have this discussion if the sun wasn't generating massive amounts of energy every moment for us.
We understand how the sun does this, and we know it's not for eternity, just as we know that we orbit the sun and not vis-versa.
scientific explanation: 2 (+1)
Man-dude willing it into existence: -1 (-1 for silly people insisting that a heliocentric universe was heresy)
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When: best estimates suggest 4 billion years ago
Where: On earth, but it's still entirely possible that microbes came from elsewhere on a comet
Why? See 1-3 above. It's fun to think it's raining because God's crying, but funny how God doesn't cry much in the Middle East.
Answer: chemical reactions between matter.
scientific explanation: 3 (+1)
Man-dude willing it into existence: -1 (-1)
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Well, one day Adam saw God getting it on with...Ok, let's not go there.
Also, learning is another anthropomorphic term I object to. When did you learn to breathe? You didn't. It just happened.
When: best estimates are 4 billion years ago
Where: On earth, for sure, but see 6
Why? So we could learn about how evil we are and go to church?
See 1-3 above
scientific explanation: 4 (+1)
Man-dude willing it into existence: -1 (-1)
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
We still have organisms that can reproduce asexually and sexually that go through phases resulting in different things. So, probably something of the opposite gender.
scientific explanation: 5 (+1)
Man-dude willing it into existence: -1 (-1)
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
Probably because there was an abundance of food. In nature, food controls population.
Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species?
Both.
How would a species have a drive to survive without individuals experiencing that drive?
I want to survive, and I'm hungry. I think it's because of chemical reactions in my body, and not because some entity watching over us decided I was hungry.
scientific explanation: 6 (+1)
Man-dude willing it into existence: -1 (-1)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
The genome has zilch to do with language. -1 for a very stupid metaphor.
How do mutations do that? Dunno, ask the mutations.
A better question is why. One answer could be related to food, but the overall answer probably entails survival.
scientific explanation: 7 (+1)
Man-dude willing it into existence: -1 (-1)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Well, can't rule it out completely, but it seems you're looking at large creatures and not small ones.
What evidence would indicate a common Creator?
Maybe god's a beetle and Kafka is the messiah.
Maybe God's a virus. Have you read Snow Crash?
Do similarities in design suggest a common Creator?
Not that I have seen. The evidence points to simple life evolving into advanced life.
scientific explanation: 8 (+1)
Man-dude willing it into existence: -1 (-1)
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
Wait a minute. Aren't you the dude who says he doesn't know jack about biology?
-1 for being totally out of your league
Natural selection is based on competition and environment.
Increasing complexity is based on increasing competition and the environment.
scientific explanation: 9 (+1)
Man-dude willing it into existence: -1 (-1)
13. When, where, why, and how did:
o Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Not sure. Out of my league. Not in yours at all.
o Single-celled animals evolve?
competition and environment
o Fish change to amphibians?
Fish can already change sexes, so it would indicate that said changes occured in tidal areas
o Amphibians change to reptiles?
Moving away from competition
o Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
Moving away from competition.
Gradually.
o How did the intermediate forms live?
Some didn't. The successful ones did.
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
o Whales evolve?
They're clearly a product of mammals returning to water, probably as a successful result of finding less competitive resources in the sea. Modern whales pretty much own all aquatic life. They can't breathe underwater, but they rule.
o Sea horses evolve?
Dunno.
o Bats evolve?
Dunno.
o Eyes evolve?
Some big dude floating in the upper stratosphere is probably gonna cast me into a lake of fire for saying they were a product of competition and environment.
o Ears evolve?
see eyes
o Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
For various reasons, but all are pinned to survival.
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
o The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body�s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
Well, digestive systems have increased with complexity. Most insects have an open system inside their bodies. All their innards are just kind of floating around. That's pretty kewl compared to an amoeba and pretty retro compared to a mammal.
o The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
Well, everything was on hold until this omnipotent guy said be fruitful and multiply.
o The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
The lungs are quite advanced. However, they don't regulate the mixture of gases. We're dependent on the environment for such.
Doesn't mean we're unique.
Ever heard of Drake's equation?
o DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
Yer, so there's this dude programming our DNA. Then he says to load the dinosaurs onto an aircraft carrier and have them crap in buckets so he can make a flood?
You know jack about DNA.
o The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
Termites used to be wasps. They're a pre-cursor to the multitude of bacteria that live off us symbiotically.
o The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
Yes, that's quite problematic when you have the whole world submerged in a flood of impossible proportions.
o The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
evolution
o The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
evolution
o The immune system or the need for it?
evolution
I'll take 10 for that line of inanity.
scientific explanation: 19 (+1)
Man-dude willing it into existence: -1 (-1)
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
You admit that you know jack about biology, then state that there's no explanation for symbiosis?
"only" is a strawman.
It remains unclear how symbiotic relationships contradict evolution, and it's increasingly obvious that your killer list of questions was copied from some dork who knows slightly more than you.
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
Mimicry is a survival mechanism.
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
It's clearly an advanced function but not unique to humans.
19. How did photosynthesis evolve?
Probably has something to do with the sun. Mushrooms, ferns, and lichens would appear to have come first.
20. How did thought evolve?
Thought appears to be the product of chemical reactions in the brain.
21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
I think you mean "what". Mushrooms, ferns, lichens. Organisms that didn't require an advanced root system.
22. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
This is a nice try at doing something other than your standard appeal to ignorance, but this pap was covered way early in the old thread that you'd occasionally pop into with your highly intelligent verbosity of:
WE JUST DON'T KNOW
Evolution doesn't predict earlier forms of life dying out. Otherwise, there'd be no amoebas and such and we'd be screwed.
23. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
A current events-stylie one? No. That hasn't been predicted.
24. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen becoming human?
For all your bombast, you don't know that carbon is the basis for all life?
25. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
I respect the "nothing" more than humans who claim some man-like entity created us, approves of us slaughtering each other, and who wrote a crap bunch of books that have required milleniums of idiocy to get past.
The times we find ourselves in may seem dark, but religion, in its dying manifest form, is going the way of witch doctors.
By that I mean I don't have a problem with religion. Rather, I respect spirituality in its most personal forms.
However, spirituality, if those who subscribe want respect, must not serve as an obstacle to progress.
Opposing evolution is a fool's folly.
You have done little here but assemble a massive tower that falls flat in the face of logic and that you subsequently use science you don't know to try to bolster it.
I feel sorry for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
First he argues evolution = atheism. |
no I argue you are an atheist!
| Quote: |
| Then he argues since we don't know everything we know nothing. |
nothing meaning you can stop assuming there is no god! becuase you cant prove it! i.e NOTHING! your theory doesnt stick! basically you have nothing.. sure evolution can prove and assume a lot of things.. just not the key points to make it all stick.. i.e ( NOTHING)
| Quote: |
| Then he argues since we don't know something about something all suppositions have equal merit. |
hallaluya!!! why you got something?? apart from wishfull thinking!?
| Quote: |
| Then he comes back to his first point. With the same person. Sometimes within the same day. |
and then you keep dodging the original questions to try and save face!
and around and around we go!!
why dont you just admit you got nothing!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
