Bah, why would he even say that. And if it falls, well it's still prophised anyways. Even the very elect will be decieved. If it falls, it wont change my faith. I don't care if a grey alien came down and said we created you. And hes from KY so hes giving this state a bad name! bah that man!
Wow so let me get this straight if someone or something came to you and gave you proof that they were really your creator you will not believe them simply because its not what you were taught to believe or its not what you believe in your "heart." That sounds a bit naive to me that you would be that blind.
Well I said a grey alien, I didn't say something or someone did I? So what you just says is completelty redundant. I know what God is and who He is to know if I was being lied to or not. Just because you didn't have an experience to justify this reasoning -- I just don't agree with you.
Well I am sort of lacking in my experience with grey aliens so I don't really know how to categorize them. Then second of all since you know what god is and who he is does that mean you have indisputable proof, if so I would love to see it. If not I do not see how what I said was redundant as what you were saying was that you would follow the religion no matter what happens.
How many serious books on apologetics have you read? If you would "love to see" indisputable proof of God, I am sure you must have read several in your search for such proof. I'd like to know which books you have read in your search.
Originally posted by Fishermage How many serious books on apologetics have you read? If you would "love to see" indisputable proof of God, I am sure you must have read several in your search for such proof. I'd like to know which books you have read in your search.
Don't worry, all of your so-called 'proof' is hidden under a couple of thousand years of obscurity. You'll never have real proof, but you won't have any real proof against it either. You can just ask people to disprove a negative, then laugh and say God is real because they can't. Isn't that convenient? Here, let's try it:
Fishermage: Jesus walked on water!
Sensible People: No he didn't. Prove it!
Fishermage: The Bible says so, and there were witnesses in the Bible! Prove it's not true!
Sensible People: The Bible isn't evidence, it's a storybook! Find an independent source!
Fishermage: I win!
Pretty cool, eh? And when they show you discrepancies in the Bible to show it is fallible, just tell them that proves the Bible is correct -- because if people were trying to fool you, wouldn't all the stories match up? Heh. This game is fun.
Originally posted by Fishermage How many serious books on apologetics have you read? If you would "love to see" indisputable proof of God, I am sure you must have read several in your search for such proof. I'd like to know which books you have read in your search.
Don't worry, all of your so-called 'proof' is hidden under a couple of thousand years of obscurity. You'll never have real proof, but you won't have any real proof against it either. You can just ask people to disprove a negative, then laugh and say God is real because they can't. Isn't that convenient? Here, let's try it:
Fishermage: Jesus walked on water!
Sensible People: No he didn't. Prove it!
Fishermage: The Bible says so, and there were witnesses in the Bible! Prove it's not true!
Sensible People: The Bible isn't evidence, it's a storybook! Find an independent source!
Fishermage: I win!
Pretty cool, eh? And when they show you discrepancies in the Bible to show it is fallible, just tell them that proves the Bible is correct -- because if people were trying to fool you, wouldn't all the stories match up? Heh. This game is fun.
- LC
So in other words, you have read no serious books on apologetics. Thank you for your time.
Originally posted by Fishermage How many serious books on apologetics have you read? If you would "love to see" indisputable proof of God, I am sure you must have read several in your search for such proof. I'd like to know which books you have read in your search.
Don't worry, all of your so-called 'proof' is hidden under a couple of thousand years of obscurity. You'll never have real proof, but you won't have any real proof against it either. You can just ask people to disprove a negative, then laugh and say God is real because they can't. Isn't that convenient? Here, let's try it:
Fishermage: Jesus walked on water!
Sensible People: No he didn't. Prove it!
Fishermage: The Bible says so, and there were witnesses in the Bible! Prove it's not true!
Sensible People: The Bible isn't evidence, it's a storybook! Find an independent source!
Fishermage: I win!
Pretty cool, eh? And when they show you discrepancies in the Bible to show it is fallible, just tell them that proves the Bible is correct -- because if people were trying to fool you, wouldn't all the stories match up? Heh. This game is fun.
- LC
So in other words, you have read no serious books on apologetics. Thank you for your time.
Firstly, I wasn't the person you asked that question of, I was just a passerby sticking my nose in the situation. I enjoy doing that.
Secondly, you'll need to define serious. When it comes to fairy-tales, I have a hard time taking anything seriously from 'experts'. Not to hurt your feelings, but unicorns aren't real, and crypto-zoology isn't a real field of science.
Originally posted by Fishermage How many serious books on apologetics have you read? If you would "love to see" indisputable proof of God, I am sure you must have read several in your search for such proof. I'd like to know which books you have read in your search.
Don't worry, all of your so-called 'proof' is hidden under a couple of thousand years of obscurity. You'll never have real proof, but you won't have any real proof against it either. You can just ask people to disprove a negative, then laugh and say God is real because they can't. Isn't that convenient? Here, let's try it:
Fishermage: Jesus walked on water!
Sensible People: No he didn't. Prove it!
Fishermage: The Bible says so, and there were witnesses in the Bible! Prove it's not true!
Sensible People: The Bible isn't evidence, it's a storybook! Find an independent source!
Fishermage: I win!
Pretty cool, eh? And when they show you discrepancies in the Bible to show it is fallible, just tell them that proves the Bible is correct -- because if people were trying to fool you, wouldn't all the stories match up? Heh. This game is fun.
- LC
So in other words, you have read no serious books on apologetics. Thank you for your time.
Firstly, I wasn't the person you asked that question of, I was just a passerby sticking my nose in the situation. I enjoy doing that.
Secondly, you'll need to define serious. When it comes to fairy-tales, I have a hard time taking anything seriously from 'experts'. Not to hurt your feelings, but unicorns aren't real, and crypto-zoology isn't a real field of science.
- LC
Sorry, I made a mistake because YOU chose to chop the context out. Anyway, it seems you haven't read any serious books on apologetics either. I define serious as written by recognized scholars in the subject.
Oh, and you can't hurt my feelings. I am trying to have an intelligent discussion here, and all you do is divert.
I will however repeat the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How many unserious ones? If you haven't read any, why argue from a position of ignorance? Why not learn the best arguments against your position and then debate?
For the record I have read most of the latest greatest atheist books, including The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, The End of Faith, and quite a few less known books on the subject. I have also read most of the answers to those books. I have also read every book Christopher Hitchens has written. I always seek to challenge myself with the best I can find against me.
It seems you would prefer ridiculing the opposition.
Originally posted by Fishermage How many serious books on apologetics have you read? If you would "love to see" indisputable proof of God, I am sure you must have read several in your search for such proof. I'd like to know which books you have read in your search.
Don't worry, all of your so-called 'proof' is hidden under a couple of thousand years of obscurity. You'll never have real proof, but you won't have any real proof against it either. You can just ask people to disprove a negative, then laugh and say God is real because they can't. Isn't that convenient? Here, let's try it:
Fishermage: Jesus walked on water!
Sensible People: No he didn't. Prove it!
Fishermage: The Bible says so, and there were witnesses in the Bible! Prove it's not true!
Sensible People: The Bible isn't evidence, it's a storybook! Find an independent source!
Fishermage: I win!
Pretty cool, eh? And when they show you discrepancies in the Bible to show it is fallible, just tell them that proves the Bible is correct -- because if people were trying to fool you, wouldn't all the stories match up? Heh. This game is fun.
- LC
So in other words, you have read no serious books on apologetics. Thank you for your time.
Firstly, I wasn't the person you asked that question of, I was just a passerby sticking my nose in the situation. I enjoy doing that.
Secondly, you'll need to define serious. When it comes to fairy-tales, I have a hard time taking anything seriously from 'experts'. Not to hurt your feelings, but unicorns aren't real, and crypto-zoology isn't a real field of science.
- LC
Sorry, I made a mistake because YOU chose to chop the context out. Anyway, it seems you haven't read any serious books on apologetics either. I define serious as written by recognized scholars in the subject.
Oh, and you can't hurt my feelings. I am trying to have an intelligent discussion here, and all you do is divert.
I will however repeat the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How many unserious ones? If you haven't read any, why argue from a position of ignorance? Why not learn the best arguments against your position and then debate?
For the record I have read most of the latest greatest atheist books, including The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, The End of Faith, and quite a few less known books on the subject. I have also read most of the answers to those books. I have also read every book Christopher Hitchens has written. I always seek to challenge myself with the best I can find against me.
It seems you would prefer ridiculing the opposition.
Oh well.
Yes, I tend to chop when things get longish. As to what I have read, the classic Apologist were required reading in my Rhetoric class, as well as some Lewis, and McGrath, along with others that I would have to dig out their names. Not to mention the modern day bloggers who proclaim expert status in mythology and write apologetics. Those are always interesting, especially when you can debate them on their own forum.
The interesting thing is, there is always that moment in the books or papers where the author waves his hands and does the Jedi Mind trick of, "You will assume this one portion is true...", and then all of the remainder of the book goes from there. I don't assume anything is true, and find it insulting that fiction should be trusted as such. Remove that one pin and the entire argument falls apart -- but we're to assume.
For instance, we're always to assume that an eyewitness account is legitimate, because why would someone lie? First, we're to assume there was an actual witness and that witness is not a figment of the author's imagination. Second, we're to assume people don't lie, have ulterior motives, or didn't have a sickness of the mind. Claims of the fantastical require fantastical proof. Period. And proof is something none of the apologists have. But again, that's the fun of having thousands of years of obscurity to hide behind. You say it is true, I say mythology is not.
Because there are enough christian radicals (note that I didn't say radical christians) who don't know what is actually in the Bible who want to impede science to make the rest of us look like a bunch of nut cases who are afraid of progress. Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that Christianity is going to go away any time soon...but that's one of the more common arguments against Christianity. Truthfully though, the war on science that secularists claim that Christians are waging isn't a product of Christianity, it's a product of materialism...The search for answers based around conclusions that have already been reached is what is stopping scientific progress...I'm speaking mostly about evolutionary science and cosmology here of course...as far as social trends being changed by Christianity, I can't honestly say that I'm sorry for what the Christians have done. It is no different for a Christian to fight for what he believes in than it is for an atheist or an agnostic...The common argument against this is that what the Christians fight for causes oppression among groups such as the homosexuals...This might be true from a secular sense and if that is your world view then it is most certainly true that Christians stand in the way of your happiness...Think of us as the nice guy that the girls never wanted to date, but simultaneously continued to date losers all of their lives...He may argue with you about the guy that you're with and frustrate the hell out of you, he may even give you some poetry and make you feel uncomfortable, but ultimately he has your best interests at heart. As for comments like Teala's...well, that's all hypocritical nonsense as far as I'm concerned...You want to end what you view as a blight on society by doing the very things to them that you claim they have done to others...You want to respond to their good intentions with ill will and hatred...It's not only hypocritcal, it's malicious. Oh dang, a GUY just called Teala a hypocrite...sorry guys, but I don't live in fantasy land where if I'm nice to Teala she'll give me hot cyberz...you people that suck up to her need to grow a pair of testicles and start interacting with real women.
There, I said it.
Thought that rant was pretty funny.
I do agree that people who want to destroy something or see it fail because they do not agree with it is narrow-minded.
Yes, I tend to chop when things get longish. As to what I have read, the classic Apologist were required reading in my Rhetoric class, as well as some Lewis, and McGrath, along with others that I would have to dig out their names. Not to mention the modern day bloggers who proclaim expert status in mythology and write apologetics. Those are always interesting, especially when you can debate them on their own forum. The interesting thing is, there is always that moment in the books or papers where the author waves his hands and does the Jedi Mind trick of, "You will assume this one portion is true...", and then all of the remainder of the book goes from there. I don't assume anything is true, and find it insulting that fiction should be trusted as such. Remove that one pin and the entire argument falls apart -- but we're to assume. For instance, we're always to assume that an eyewitness account is legitimate, because why would someone lie? First, we're to assume there was an actual witness and that witness is not a figment of the author's imagination. Second, we're to assume people don't lie, have ulterior motives, or didn't have a sickness of the mind. Claims of the fantastical require fantastical proof. Period. And proof is something none of the apologists have. But again, that's the fun of having thousands of years of obscurity to hide behind. You say it is true, I say mythology is not. - LC
Lets not forget that the Gospels Christians hold dearly are all contradictory to one another, and the the original authorship of the Old Testament is still classified by letters J, D, P and etc. We still don't know who wrote/edited much of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament was written well after JC's time, with nearly every story/fable contradicting another.
For instance, in Matthew, Jesus asks "Father, why have you forsaken me?" when on the cross. In Mark I believe, he says "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". This seems like a minor difference, but this is a glaring symbol of the Bible's hodge podge collection of false stories to suit the ultimate goal of brainwashing you as Christians. Anyone with any logic, reason and/or the ability to read critically will see the Bible for what it is: A text that has cherry-picked stories to make it convenient to enforce the idea of sin, repentence, afterlife and salvation. Its almost as though Christians view all of these contradtictions as part of God's greater plan, which is quite silly, since humans wrote all of these stories to begin with.
Yes, I tend to chop when things get longish. As to what I have read, the classic Apologist were required reading in my Rhetoric class, as well as some Lewis, and McGrath, along with others that I would have to dig out their names. Not to mention the modern day bloggers who proclaim expert status in mythology and write apologetics. Those are always interesting, especially when you can debate them on their own forum. The interesting thing is, there is always that moment in the books or papers where the author waves his hands and does the Jedi Mind trick of, "You will assume this one portion is true...", and then all of the remainder of the book goes from there. I don't assume anything is true, and find it insulting that fiction should be trusted as such. Remove that one pin and the entire argument falls apart -- but we're to assume. For instance, we're always to assume that an eyewitness account is legitimate, because why would someone lie? First, we're to assume there was an actual witness and that witness is not a figment of the author's imagination. Second, we're to assume people don't lie, have ulterior motives, or didn't have a sickness of the mind. Claims of the fantastical require fantastical proof. Period. And proof is something none of the apologists have. But again, that's the fun of having thousands of years of obscurity to hide behind. You say it is true, I say mythology is not. - LC
Lets not forget that the Gospels Christians hold dearly are all contradictory to one another, and the the original authorship of the Old Testament is still classified by letters J, D, P and etc. We still don't know who wrote/edited much of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament was written well after JC's time, with nearly every story/fable contradicting another.
For instance, in Matthew, Jesus asks "Father, why have you forsaken me?" when on the cross. In Mark I believe, he says "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". This seems like a minor difference, but this is a glaring symbol of the Bible's hodge podge collection of false stories to suit the ultimate goal of brainwashing you as Christians. Anyone with any logic, reason and/or the ability to read critically will see the Bible for what it is: A text that has cherry-picked stories to make it convenient to enforce the idea of sin, repentence, afterlife and salvation. Its almost as though Christians view all of these contradtictions as part of God's greater plan, which is quite silly, since humans wrote all of these stories to begin with.
The Gospels aren't contradictory to one another, they give slightly different accounts from varying viewpoints.
As someone who has taken a REAL IQ test, been labeled a genius, and converted to Christianity much later in life (when I was 19) I take great offense to the idea that you have to be an illogical bonehead in order to believe what is in the Bible...I personally believe that you have to be an illogical bonehead without any critical thinking skills to believe in evolution...want to bring up some of the points from the Bible that you think are contradictory to science? Let's talk about this.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Good. Then maybe we can get back to teaching real science, not "intelligent design" theories.
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
What I find out? I have never found a decent argument against the Theory of Evolution, nor a probable and well-supported alternative. If you're so sure of yourself, you should be publishing in scientific journals and not hiding out on a gaming forum where you can pat yourself on the back for knowing more than a 16 year old. Somehow, I imagine I've heard everything you're going to say. I'm not just sure, I am positive.
As for any merits Intelligent Design may carry, there are none that cross over into the realm of science. Intelligent Design is simply an attack, generated by fervent belief in a mythological being, on a well-thought and supported Scientific Theory. Don't act like you've got some grand weapon against it. I know better. And while we're at it, let's not call it Intelligent Design, let's call it what it really is: Creationism. Creationism is the idea that if you can find some error in Evolution, then Goddidit.
So yeah, I'll be back on Monday, let me know if you come up with something that isn't cut and pasted from a Creationist website. Cite your sources. No quote mining. And if it is the same old argument, that I've heard so many times it makes me want to punch puppies, then I'll just ignore you -- because I already know you're not as good as you imagine yourself, you're just blustering violently because you haven't done your homework.
I'll bring a mountain of evidence, you bring your god-in-the-gaps mentality.
- LC
edit: On second thought, I just saw you're 21 years old. You have nothing to bring to the table. No experience. No real intelligence (oh my, he took an IQ test... scary). And certainly no idea what you believe. I'll wait 5-6 years and see if you actually believe the same thing. Look me up then. I imagine you'll be an atheist by that time. Right now, you just -think- you know something.
The Gospels aren't contradictory to one another, they give slightly different accounts from varying viewpoints. As someone who has taken a REAL IQ test, been labeled a genius, and converted to Christianity much later in life (when I was 19) I take great offense to the idea that you have to be an illogical bonehead in order to believe what is in the Bible...I personally believe that you have to be an illogical bonehead without any critical thinking skills to believe in evolution...want to bring up some of the points from the Bible that you think are contradictory to science? Let's talk about this.
Yes, they are very contradictory. Here is a great article that was recently published/aired on NPR:
Also, anyone who calls themself a "genius" is surely a fool. The wisest man is always the most humble. Don't come around here with your "real IQ test" either, nobody gives a fuck.
I never used the term illogical bonehead either, I simply stated that if you read the bible critically (nobody does, because it is regarded as "holy"), then you will see that it makes no sense at times, and that it is a patchwork of literature we don't even know who wrote! How can this be?
What is your last point? Yep, the bible and science contradict each other at about every turn.
The Gospels aren't contradictory to one another, they give slightly different accounts from varying viewpoints. As someone who has taken a REAL IQ test, been labeled a genius, and converted to Christianity much later in life (when I was 19) I take great offense to the idea that you have to be an illogical bonehead in order to believe what is in the Bible...I personally believe that you have to be an illogical bonehead without any critical thinking skills to believe in evolution...want to bring up some of the points from the Bible that you think are contradictory to science? Let's talk about this.
Yes, they are very contradictory. Here is a great article that was recently published/aired on NPR:
Also, anyone who calls themself a "genius" is surely a fool. The wisest man is always the most humble. Don't come around here with your "real IQ test" either, nobody gives a fuck.
I never used the term illogical bonehead either, I simply stated that if you read the bible critically (nobody does, because it is regarded as "holy"), then you will see that it makes no sense at times, and that it is a patchwork of literature we don't even know who wrote! How can this be?
What is your last point? Yep, the bible and science contradict each other at about every turn.
The point was not to build myself up, it was to provide a first hand example of someone who is certainly NOT incapable of critical thinking.
Now write out some of the ways that they contradict eachother, stop claiming something and not actually providing reasons for it, all you're doing is building yourself a little wall so that you don't have to listen to or see the other side, which is exactly what people like you continually accuse Christians of doing.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Good. Then maybe we can get back to teaching real science, not "intelligent design" theories.
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
What I find out? I have never found a decent argument against the Theory of Evolution, nor a probable and well-supported alternative. If you're so sure of yourself, you should be publishing in scientific journals and not hiding out on a gaming forum where you can pat yourself on the back for knowing more than a 16 year old. Somehow, I imagine I've heard everything you're going to say. I'm not just sure, I am positive.
As for any merits Intelligent Design may carry, there are none that cross over into the realm of science. Intelligent Design is simply an attack, generated by fervent belief in a mythological being, on a well-thought and supported Scientific Theory. Don't act like you've got some grand weapon against it. I know better. And while we're at it, let's not call it Intelligent Design, let's call it what it really is: Creationism. Creationism is the idea that if you can find some error in Evolution, then Goddidit.
So yeah, I'll be back on Monday, let me know if you come up with something that isn't cut and pasted from a Creationist website. Cite your sources. No quote mining. And if it is the same old argument, that I've heard so many times it makes me want to punch puppies, then I'll just ignore you -- because I already know you're not as good as you imagine yourself, you're just blustering violently because you haven't done your homework.
I'll bring a mountain of evidence, you bring your god-in-the-gaps mentality.
- LC
edit: On second thought, I just saw you're 21 years old. You have nothing to bring to the table. No experience. No real intelligence (oh my, he took an IQ test... scary). And certainly no idea what you believe. I'll wait 5-6 years and see if you actually believe the same thing. Look me up then. I imagine you'll be an atheist by that time. Right now, you just -think- you know something.
You're right, I suppose a person who is only twenty one years old can't really know anything...I'm sure that once I become as experienced and wise as you are I'll see the light, that our universe just sprung up from nothingness, that everything is a result of chance and that our entire universe is ultimately meaningless.
I'm sure that when I get as old as you are (however old that is) I'll manage to reason things out the way that you have, because it's not like there are millions of Christians who are both middle aged and old, and also possess considerable intelligence right?
The argument was that someone who believes in the Bible cannot possibly have critical thinking skills, I shot that down with my own experience, you have nothing of substance to back up the things that the two of you have said...I offered to answer whatever questions that you had, instead of posing anything of worth you have decided to proclaim yourself so positive of your beliefs that you're unwilling to discuss anything...Once again the hypocrisy here is astounding...You atheists claim that Christians shelter themselves from debate with reasonable and scientifically minded people because we're scared...what I have always experienced is that the opposite is equally true for atheists...Some Christians are shut ins, this is true...but just as many atheists are as well...and for good reason, we wouldn't want anything to come between you and your belief in nothing.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
The point was not to build myself up, it was to provide a first hand example of someone who is certainly NOT incapable of critical thinking. Now write out some of the ways that they contradict eachother, stop claiming something and not actually providing reasons for it, all you're doing is building yourself a little wall so that you don't have to listen to or see the other side, which is exactly what people like you continually accuse Christians of doing.
Okay, here is a good excerpt from the book referred to in the article:
"In Matthew, Jesus comes into being when he is conceived, or born, of a virgin; in John, Jesus is the incarnate Word of God who was with God in the beginning and through whom the universe was made. In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God; in John, that's precisely who he is. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself (and never that he is divine); in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does miracles. "
If the gospels can't agree on the divinity of their leader, what are we supposed to think? Each of these four disciples have radically different views about Jesus, and write about him according to their own experiences. Not only do they contradict each other regularly, the whole concept of Jesus' existence is contradictory! Also, it looks as though Matthew doesn't regard Jesus as divine either. But you Christians will probably just gloss over that book, right?
that our universe just sprung up from nothingness, that everything is a result of chance and that our entire universe is ultimately meaningless.
evolution does not say things came from nothing, it actually requires a lot things to function. neither does it say that everything is a result of chance, it is about changes in the diversity of populations responding to to environmental pressures based on the heritability of advantages that arise in individual variation. The only place that chance comes into evolution is variability in offspring, clearly not everything as the environment plays a key role.
evolution is a scientific theory, it is based on testable evidence and experiment, intelligent design starts with a basic hypothesis that is simply not testable so can never be a scientific theory. Remember there is no absolute proof in science, only things that can be repeatably tested.
Maybe you are getting evolution confused with abiogenisis and the the origin of the universe (big bang theory)?
Good. Then maybe we can get back to teaching real science, not "intelligent design" theories.
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
What I find out? I have never found a decent argument against the Theory of Evolution
Oh you haven't, huh? Well how about this? Mathmatically, evolution is impossible. Scientists say that the human race emerged about 200,00 years ago. Our closest animal relative is the chimpanzee. The percentage of DNA that humans and chimps share is not precisely known, but the most recent research indicates it's about 94%. The theory is that humans and chimps both branched off from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.
Now, 94% shared genetic material sounds pretty close, but consider that there are three billion DNA strands in the human genome. So even with a 94% match, that still leaves a 180 million DNA strand difference between humans and chimps. I don't know how evolutionists divide the number of mutations each species made from that common ancestor, but to get the smallest number, let's divide it in half and say that each one made roughly 90 million. In all likelihood, since humans are considered the superior species, it went through a greater number of mutations than chimps.
So the question is, how could the human race possibly have gone through 90 million mutations in the last 6 million years to get from that common ancestor to where we are today? It's impossible. Considering that each generation could reproduce, at best, evey few years, and taking into account that every single mutation would have to be a positive one (the truth is that genetic mutations are far more likely to be negative, such as a cancer mutation), that would mean that there would have to be something on the order of about 60 positive mutations with each successive generation. And considering that modern science has observed no positive genetic mutations in the last one hundred years, I would call that mathmatically impossible.
So believing in evolution to explain the origin of life takes far more faith than to believe that we came into being much more dramatically, imo.
yeah, but the thing is, that would chaffs the evolutionists ass when you tell them it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in creationism. It just pisses them off like crazy! lol
I personally believe in Evolution as much as I believe shit tastes like maple syrup and strawberry creme.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
Good. Then maybe we can get back to teaching real science, not "intelligent design" theories.
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
What I find out? I have never found a decent argument against the Theory of Evolution
Oh you haven't, huh? Well how about this? Mathmatically, evolution is impossible. Scientists say that the human race emerged about 200,00 years ago. Our closest animal relative is the chimpanzee. The percentage of DNA that humans and chimps share is not precisely known, but the most recent research indicates it's about 94%. The theory is that humans and chimps both branched off from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.
Now, 94% shared genetic material sounds pretty close, but consider that there are three billion DNA strands in the human genome. So even with a 94% match, that still leaves a 180 million DNA strand difference between humans and chimps. I don't know how evolutionists divide the number of mutations each species made from that common ancestor, but to get the smallest number, let's divide it in half and say that each one made roughly 90 million. In all likelihood, since humans are considered the superior species, it went through a greater number of mutations than chimps.
So the question is, how could the human race possibly have gone through 90 million mutations in the last 6 million years to get from that common ancestor to where we are today? It's impossible. Considering that each generation could reproduce, at best, evey few years, and taking into account that every single mutation would have to be a positive one (the truth is that genetic mutations are far more likely to be negative, such as a cancer mutation), that would mean that there would have to be something on the order of about 60 positive mutations with each successive generation. And considering that modern science has observed no positive genetic mutations in the last one hundred years, I would call that mathmatically impossible.
So believing in evolution to explain the origin of life takes far more faith than to believe that we came into being much more dramatically, imo.
No, it doesn't take more faith. The theory of evolution has come from research, and the conclussion is drawn after mountains of overwhelming evidence. Religious faith has come in most cases from an old book that usually contains "Miracles" and other things that can't really happen.
Do you care about the evidence behind Evolution? No. You don't. Neither does Enigma.
The reason? Very simple:
Bertrand Russel:
""If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.""
No, it doesn't take more faith. The theory of evolution has come from research, and the conclussion is drawn after mountains of overwhelming evidence. Religious faith has come in most cases from an old book that usually contains "miricales" and other things that can't really happen. I posted the numbers a while ago, less than 1% of the scientific community believes in creationism.
lol
that 1% thing was cute too. Like 1% of the Scientific community doesn't believe in global warming either, huh.
Stop being a sheep
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
No, it doesn't take more faith. The theory of evolution has come from research, and the conclussion is drawn after mountains of overwhelming evidence. Religious faith has come in most cases from an old book that usually contains "miricales" and other things that can't really happen. I posted the numbers a while ago, less than 1% of the scientific community believes in creationism.
lol
that 1% thing was cute too. Like 1% of the Scientific community doesn't believe in global warming either, huh.
Stop being a sheep
Oh, so Global Warming doesn't exist because you say it isn't?
Gosh Enigma, it all makes perfect sense now. Here we are, having hundreds of thousands scientists who have studied for many, many years and done many years of research come to the conclussions of Global Warming, when a christian priest simply says "Global Warming doesn't exist". Brilliant!
You're just taking the easy road out.
It's much easier to just believe a god watches over you with a nice spot in heaven waiting for you and believe global warming doesn't exist to make life a bit more pleasant.
I agree with you Enigma, stop being a sheep.
But humor me, tell me why it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creationism?
Comments
Wow so let me get this straight if someone or something came to you and gave you proof that they were really your creator you will not believe them simply because its not what you were taught to believe or its not what you believe in your "heart." That sounds a bit naive to me that you would be that blind.
Well I said a grey alien, I didn't say something or someone did I? So what you just says is completelty redundant. I know what God is and who He is to know if I was being lied to or not. Just because you didn't have an experience to justify this reasoning -- I just don't agree with you.
Well I am sort of lacking in my experience with grey aliens so I don't really know how to categorize them. Then second of all since you know what god is and who he is does that mean you have indisputable proof, if so I would love to see it. If not I do not see how what I said was redundant as what you were saying was that you would follow the religion no matter what happens.
How many serious books on apologetics have you read? If you would "love to see" indisputable proof of God, I am sure you must have read several in your search for such proof. I'd like to know which books you have read in your search.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Don't worry, all of your so-called 'proof' is hidden under a couple of thousand years of obscurity. You'll never have real proof, but you won't have any real proof against it either. You can just ask people to disprove a negative, then laugh and say God is real because they can't. Isn't that convenient? Here, let's try it:
Fishermage: Jesus walked on water!
Sensible People: No he didn't. Prove it!
Fishermage: The Bible says so, and there were witnesses in the Bible! Prove it's not true!
Sensible People: The Bible isn't evidence, it's a storybook! Find an independent source!
Fishermage: I win!
Pretty cool, eh? And when they show you discrepancies in the Bible to show it is fallible, just tell them that proves the Bible is correct -- because if people were trying to fool you, wouldn't all the stories match up? Heh. This game is fun.
- LC
Don't worry, all of your so-called 'proof' is hidden under a couple of thousand years of obscurity. You'll never have real proof, but you won't have any real proof against it either. You can just ask people to disprove a negative, then laugh and say God is real because they can't. Isn't that convenient? Here, let's try it:
Fishermage: Jesus walked on water!
Sensible People: No he didn't. Prove it!
Fishermage: The Bible says so, and there were witnesses in the Bible! Prove it's not true!
Sensible People: The Bible isn't evidence, it's a storybook! Find an independent source!
Fishermage: I win!
Pretty cool, eh? And when they show you discrepancies in the Bible to show it is fallible, just tell them that proves the Bible is correct -- because if people were trying to fool you, wouldn't all the stories match up? Heh. This game is fun.
- LC
So in other words, you have read no serious books on apologetics. Thank you for your time.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Don't worry, all of your so-called 'proof' is hidden under a couple of thousand years of obscurity. You'll never have real proof, but you won't have any real proof against it either. You can just ask people to disprove a negative, then laugh and say God is real because they can't. Isn't that convenient? Here, let's try it:
Fishermage: Jesus walked on water!
Sensible People: No he didn't. Prove it!
Fishermage: The Bible says so, and there were witnesses in the Bible! Prove it's not true!
Sensible People: The Bible isn't evidence, it's a storybook! Find an independent source!
Fishermage: I win!
Pretty cool, eh? And when they show you discrepancies in the Bible to show it is fallible, just tell them that proves the Bible is correct -- because if people were trying to fool you, wouldn't all the stories match up? Heh. This game is fun.
- LC
So in other words, you have read no serious books on apologetics. Thank you for your time.
Firstly, I wasn't the person you asked that question of, I was just a passerby sticking my nose in the situation. I enjoy doing that.
Secondly, you'll need to define serious. When it comes to fairy-tales, I have a hard time taking anything seriously from 'experts'. Not to hurt your feelings, but unicorns aren't real, and crypto-zoology isn't a real field of science.
- LC
Don't worry, all of your so-called 'proof' is hidden under a couple of thousand years of obscurity. You'll never have real proof, but you won't have any real proof against it either. You can just ask people to disprove a negative, then laugh and say God is real because they can't. Isn't that convenient? Here, let's try it:
Fishermage: Jesus walked on water!
Sensible People: No he didn't. Prove it!
Fishermage: The Bible says so, and there were witnesses in the Bible! Prove it's not true!
Sensible People: The Bible isn't evidence, it's a storybook! Find an independent source!
Fishermage: I win!
Pretty cool, eh? And when they show you discrepancies in the Bible to show it is fallible, just tell them that proves the Bible is correct -- because if people were trying to fool you, wouldn't all the stories match up? Heh. This game is fun.
- LC
So in other words, you have read no serious books on apologetics. Thank you for your time.
Firstly, I wasn't the person you asked that question of, I was just a passerby sticking my nose in the situation. I enjoy doing that.
Secondly, you'll need to define serious. When it comes to fairy-tales, I have a hard time taking anything seriously from 'experts'. Not to hurt your feelings, but unicorns aren't real, and crypto-zoology isn't a real field of science.
- LC
Sorry, I made a mistake because YOU chose to chop the context out. Anyway, it seems you haven't read any serious books on apologetics either. I define serious as written by recognized scholars in the subject.
Oh, and you can't hurt my feelings. I am trying to have an intelligent discussion here, and all you do is divert.
I will however repeat the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How many unserious ones? If you haven't read any, why argue from a position of ignorance? Why not learn the best arguments against your position and then debate?
For the record I have read most of the latest greatest atheist books, including The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, The End of Faith, and quite a few less known books on the subject. I have also read most of the answers to those books. I have also read every book Christopher Hitchens has written. I always seek to challenge myself with the best I can find against me.
It seems you would prefer ridiculing the opposition.
Oh well.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Don't worry, all of your so-called 'proof' is hidden under a couple of thousand years of obscurity. You'll never have real proof, but you won't have any real proof against it either. You can just ask people to disprove a negative, then laugh and say God is real because they can't. Isn't that convenient? Here, let's try it:
Fishermage: Jesus walked on water!
Sensible People: No he didn't. Prove it!
Fishermage: The Bible says so, and there were witnesses in the Bible! Prove it's not true!
Sensible People: The Bible isn't evidence, it's a storybook! Find an independent source!
Fishermage: I win!
Pretty cool, eh? And when they show you discrepancies in the Bible to show it is fallible, just tell them that proves the Bible is correct -- because if people were trying to fool you, wouldn't all the stories match up? Heh. This game is fun.
- LC
So in other words, you have read no serious books on apologetics. Thank you for your time.
Firstly, I wasn't the person you asked that question of, I was just a passerby sticking my nose in the situation. I enjoy doing that.
Secondly, you'll need to define serious. When it comes to fairy-tales, I have a hard time taking anything seriously from 'experts'. Not to hurt your feelings, but unicorns aren't real, and crypto-zoology isn't a real field of science.
- LC
Sorry, I made a mistake because YOU chose to chop the context out. Anyway, it seems you haven't read any serious books on apologetics either. I define serious as written by recognized scholars in the subject.
Oh, and you can't hurt my feelings. I am trying to have an intelligent discussion here, and all you do is divert.
I will however repeat the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How many unserious ones? If you haven't read any, why argue from a position of ignorance? Why not learn the best arguments against your position and then debate?
For the record I have read most of the latest greatest atheist books, including The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, The End of Faith, and quite a few less known books on the subject. I have also read most of the answers to those books. I have also read every book Christopher Hitchens has written. I always seek to challenge myself with the best I can find against me.
It seems you would prefer ridiculing the opposition.
Oh well.
Yes, I tend to chop when things get longish. As to what I have read, the classic Apologist were required reading in my Rhetoric class, as well as some Lewis, and McGrath, along with others that I would have to dig out their names. Not to mention the modern day bloggers who proclaim expert status in mythology and write apologetics. Those are always interesting, especially when you can debate them on their own forum.
The interesting thing is, there is always that moment in the books or papers where the author waves his hands and does the Jedi Mind trick of, "You will assume this one portion is true...", and then all of the remainder of the book goes from there. I don't assume anything is true, and find it insulting that fiction should be trusted as such. Remove that one pin and the entire argument falls apart -- but we're to assume.
For instance, we're always to assume that an eyewitness account is legitimate, because why would someone lie? First, we're to assume there was an actual witness and that witness is not a figment of the author's imagination. Second, we're to assume people don't lie, have ulterior motives, or didn't have a sickness of the mind. Claims of the fantastical require fantastical proof. Period. And proof is something none of the apologists have. But again, that's the fun of having thousands of years of obscurity to hide behind. You say it is true, I say mythology is not.
- LC
Thought that rant was pretty funny.
I do agree that people who want to destroy something or see it fail because they do not agree with it is narrow-minded.
------------------
Originally posted by javac
well i'm 35 and have a PhD in science, and then 10 years experience in bioinformatics... you?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/218865/page/8
Lets not forget that the Gospels Christians hold dearly are all contradictory to one another, and the the original authorship of the Old Testament is still classified by letters J, D, P and etc. We still don't know who wrote/edited much of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament was written well after JC's time, with nearly every story/fable contradicting another.
For instance, in Matthew, Jesus asks "Father, why have you forsaken me?" when on the cross. In Mark I believe, he says "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". This seems like a minor difference, but this is a glaring symbol of the Bible's hodge podge collection of false stories to suit the ultimate goal of brainwashing you as Christians. Anyone with any logic, reason and/or the ability to read critically will see the Bible for what it is: A text that has cherry-picked stories to make it convenient to enforce the idea of sin, repentence, afterlife and salvation. Its almost as though Christians view all of these contradtictions as part of God's greater plan, which is quite silly, since humans wrote all of these stories to begin with.
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Lets not forget that the Gospels Christians hold dearly are all contradictory to one another, and the the original authorship of the Old Testament is still classified by letters J, D, P and etc. We still don't know who wrote/edited much of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament was written well after JC's time, with nearly every story/fable contradicting another.
For instance, in Matthew, Jesus asks "Father, why have you forsaken me?" when on the cross. In Mark I believe, he says "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". This seems like a minor difference, but this is a glaring symbol of the Bible's hodge podge collection of false stories to suit the ultimate goal of brainwashing you as Christians. Anyone with any logic, reason and/or the ability to read critically will see the Bible for what it is: A text that has cherry-picked stories to make it convenient to enforce the idea of sin, repentence, afterlife and salvation. Its almost as though Christians view all of these contradtictions as part of God's greater plan, which is quite silly, since humans wrote all of these stories to begin with.
The Gospels aren't contradictory to one another, they give slightly different accounts from varying viewpoints.
As someone who has taken a REAL IQ test, been labeled a genius, and converted to Christianity much later in life (when I was 19) I take great offense to the idea that you have to be an illogical bonehead in order to believe what is in the Bible...I personally believe that you have to be an illogical bonehead without any critical thinking skills to believe in evolution...want to bring up some of the points from the Bible that you think are contradictory to science? Let's talk about this.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
What I find out? I have never found a decent argument against the Theory of Evolution, nor a probable and well-supported alternative. If you're so sure of yourself, you should be publishing in scientific journals and not hiding out on a gaming forum where you can pat yourself on the back for knowing more than a 16 year old. Somehow, I imagine I've heard everything you're going to say. I'm not just sure, I am positive.
As for any merits Intelligent Design may carry, there are none that cross over into the realm of science. Intelligent Design is simply an attack, generated by fervent belief in a mythological being, on a well-thought and supported Scientific Theory. Don't act like you've got some grand weapon against it. I know better. And while we're at it, let's not call it Intelligent Design, let's call it what it really is: Creationism. Creationism is the idea that if you can find some error in Evolution, then Goddidit.
So yeah, I'll be back on Monday, let me know if you come up with something that isn't cut and pasted from a Creationist website. Cite your sources. No quote mining. And if it is the same old argument, that I've heard so many times it makes me want to punch puppies, then I'll just ignore you -- because I already know you're not as good as you imagine yourself, you're just blustering violently because you haven't done your homework.
I'll bring a mountain of evidence, you bring your god-in-the-gaps mentality.
- LC
edit: On second thought, I just saw you're 21 years old. You have nothing to bring to the table. No experience. No real intelligence (oh my, he took an IQ test... scary). And certainly no idea what you believe. I'll wait 5-6 years and see if you actually believe the same thing. Look me up then. I imagine you'll be an atheist by that time. Right now, you just -think- you know something.
Yes, they are very contradictory. Here is a great article that was recently published/aired on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895
Also, anyone who calls themself a "genius" is surely a fool. The wisest man is always the most humble. Don't come around here with your "real IQ test" either, nobody gives a fuck.
I never used the term illogical bonehead either, I simply stated that if you read the bible critically (nobody does, because it is regarded as "holy"), then you will see that it makes no sense at times, and that it is a patchwork of literature we don't even know who wrote! How can this be?
What is your last point? Yep, the bible and science contradict each other at about every turn.
Yes, they are very contradictory. Here is a great article that was recently published/aired on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895
Also, anyone who calls themself a "genius" is surely a fool. The wisest man is always the most humble. Don't come around here with your "real IQ test" either, nobody gives a fuck.
I never used the term illogical bonehead either, I simply stated that if you read the bible critically (nobody does, because it is regarded as "holy"), then you will see that it makes no sense at times, and that it is a patchwork of literature we don't even know who wrote! How can this be?
What is your last point? Yep, the bible and science contradict each other at about every turn.
The point was not to build myself up, it was to provide a first hand example of someone who is certainly NOT incapable of critical thinking.
Now write out some of the ways that they contradict eachother, stop claiming something and not actually providing reasons for it, all you're doing is building yourself a little wall so that you don't have to listen to or see the other side, which is exactly what people like you continually accuse Christians of doing.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
What I find out? I have never found a decent argument against the Theory of Evolution, nor a probable and well-supported alternative. If you're so sure of yourself, you should be publishing in scientific journals and not hiding out on a gaming forum where you can pat yourself on the back for knowing more than a 16 year old. Somehow, I imagine I've heard everything you're going to say. I'm not just sure, I am positive.
As for any merits Intelligent Design may carry, there are none that cross over into the realm of science. Intelligent Design is simply an attack, generated by fervent belief in a mythological being, on a well-thought and supported Scientific Theory. Don't act like you've got some grand weapon against it. I know better. And while we're at it, let's not call it Intelligent Design, let's call it what it really is: Creationism. Creationism is the idea that if you can find some error in Evolution, then Goddidit.
So yeah, I'll be back on Monday, let me know if you come up with something that isn't cut and pasted from a Creationist website. Cite your sources. No quote mining. And if it is the same old argument, that I've heard so many times it makes me want to punch puppies, then I'll just ignore you -- because I already know you're not as good as you imagine yourself, you're just blustering violently because you haven't done your homework.
I'll bring a mountain of evidence, you bring your god-in-the-gaps mentality.
- LC
edit: On second thought, I just saw you're 21 years old. You have nothing to bring to the table. No experience. No real intelligence (oh my, he took an IQ test... scary). And certainly no idea what you believe. I'll wait 5-6 years and see if you actually believe the same thing. Look me up then. I imagine you'll be an atheist by that time. Right now, you just -think- you know something.
You're right, I suppose a person who is only twenty one years old can't really know anything...I'm sure that once I become as experienced and wise as you are I'll see the light, that our universe just sprung up from nothingness, that everything is a result of chance and that our entire universe is ultimately meaningless.
I'm sure that when I get as old as you are (however old that is) I'll manage to reason things out the way that you have, because it's not like there are millions of Christians who are both middle aged and old, and also possess considerable intelligence right?
The argument was that someone who believes in the Bible cannot possibly have critical thinking skills, I shot that down with my own experience, you have nothing of substance to back up the things that the two of you have said...I offered to answer whatever questions that you had, instead of posing anything of worth you have decided to proclaim yourself so positive of your beliefs that you're unwilling to discuss anything...Once again the hypocrisy here is astounding...You atheists claim that Christians shelter themselves from debate with reasonable and scientifically minded people because we're scared...what I have always experienced is that the opposite is equally true for atheists...Some Christians are shut ins, this is true...but just as many atheists are as well...and for good reason, we wouldn't want anything to come between you and your belief in nothing.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Okay, here is a good excerpt from the book referred to in the article:
"In Matthew, Jesus comes into being when he is conceived, or born, of a virgin; in John, Jesus is the incarnate Word of God who was with God in the beginning and through whom the universe was made. In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God; in John, that's precisely who he is. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself (and never that he is divine); in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does miracles. "
If the gospels can't agree on the divinity of their leader, what are we supposed to think? Each of these four disciples have radically different views about Jesus, and write about him according to their own experiences. Not only do they contradict each other regularly, the whole concept of Jesus' existence is contradictory! Also, it looks as though Matthew doesn't regard Jesus as divine either. But you Christians will probably just gloss over that book, right?
Still waiting for your reply Draenor. I believe we left off with you claiming that the gospels do not contradict each other?
Maybe we can kill some time by having Lucky Curse research death totals from the Spanish Inquisition, Crusades and other holy bloodbaths?
Or maybe we can talk about how the founder of the Lutheran church was a rabid anti-semite?
"evangelical collapse"? 'bout damn time...
Science & reason made humankind create airplanes. God & religion made humankind fly airplanes into skyscrapers.
evolution does not say things came from nothing, it actually requires a lot things to function. neither does it say that everything is a result of chance, it is about changes in the diversity of populations responding to to environmental pressures based on the heritability of advantages that arise in individual variation. The only place that chance comes into evolution is variability in offspring, clearly not everything as the environment plays a key role.
evolution is a scientific theory, it is based on testable evidence and experiment, intelligent design starts with a basic hypothesis that is simply not testable so can never be a scientific theory. Remember there is no absolute proof in science, only things that can be repeatably tested.
Maybe you are getting evolution confused with abiogenisis and the the origin of the universe (big bang theory)?
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
What I find out? I have never found a decent argument against the Theory of Evolution
Oh you haven't, huh? Well how about this? Mathmatically, evolution is impossible. Scientists say that the human race emerged about 200,00 years ago. Our closest animal relative is the chimpanzee. The percentage of DNA that humans and chimps share is not precisely known, but the most recent research indicates it's about 94%. The theory is that humans and chimps both branched off from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.
Now, 94% shared genetic material sounds pretty close, but consider that there are three billion DNA strands in the human genome. So even with a 94% match, that still leaves a 180 million DNA strand difference between humans and chimps. I don't know how evolutionists divide the number of mutations each species made from that common ancestor, but to get the smallest number, let's divide it in half and say that each one made roughly 90 million. In all likelihood, since humans are considered the superior species, it went through a greater number of mutations than chimps.
So the question is, how could the human race possibly have gone through 90 million mutations in the last 6 million years to get from that common ancestor to where we are today? It's impossible. Considering that each generation could reproduce, at best, evey few years, and taking into account that every single mutation would have to be a positive one (the truth is that genetic mutations are far more likely to be negative, such as a cancer mutation), that would mean that there would have to be something on the order of about 60 positive mutations with each successive generation. And considering that modern science has observed no positive genetic mutations in the last one hundred years, I would call that mathmatically impossible.
So believing in evolution to explain the origin of life takes far more faith than to believe that we came into being much more dramatically, imo.
yeah, but the thing is, that would chaffs the evolutionists ass when you tell them it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in creationism. It just pisses them off like crazy! lol
I personally believe in Evolution as much as I believe shit tastes like maple syrup and strawberry creme.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
Don't even say evolution is science, its just a theory too. View both sides of the coin evenly.
It is a one sided coin. Evolution is a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design is not.
- LC
Want to debate on the scientific merits of evolution versus intelligent design?
You're not going to be happy with what you find out about your precious evolution pseudoscience.
What I find out? I have never found a decent argument against the Theory of Evolution
Oh you haven't, huh? Well how about this? Mathmatically, evolution is impossible. Scientists say that the human race emerged about 200,00 years ago. Our closest animal relative is the chimpanzee. The percentage of DNA that humans and chimps share is not precisely known, but the most recent research indicates it's about 94%. The theory is that humans and chimps both branched off from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.
Now, 94% shared genetic material sounds pretty close, but consider that there are three billion DNA strands in the human genome. So even with a 94% match, that still leaves a 180 million DNA strand difference between humans and chimps. I don't know how evolutionists divide the number of mutations each species made from that common ancestor, but to get the smallest number, let's divide it in half and say that each one made roughly 90 million. In all likelihood, since humans are considered the superior species, it went through a greater number of mutations than chimps.
So the question is, how could the human race possibly have gone through 90 million mutations in the last 6 million years to get from that common ancestor to where we are today? It's impossible. Considering that each generation could reproduce, at best, evey few years, and taking into account that every single mutation would have to be a positive one (the truth is that genetic mutations are far more likely to be negative, such as a cancer mutation), that would mean that there would have to be something on the order of about 60 positive mutations with each successive generation. And considering that modern science has observed no positive genetic mutations in the last one hundred years, I would call that mathmatically impossible.
So believing in evolution to explain the origin of life takes far more faith than to believe that we came into being much more dramatically, imo.
No, it doesn't take more faith. The theory of evolution has come from research, and the conclussion is drawn after mountains of overwhelming evidence. Religious faith has come in most cases from an old book that usually contains "Miracles" and other things that can't really happen.
Do you care about the evidence behind Evolution? No. You don't. Neither does Enigma.
The reason? Very simple:
Bertrand Russel:
""If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.""
lol
that 1% thing was cute too. Like 1% of the Scientific community doesn't believe in global warming either, huh.
Stop being a sheep
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
lol
that 1% thing was cute too. Like 1% of the Scientific community doesn't believe in global warming either, huh.
Stop being a sheep
Oh, so Global Warming doesn't exist because you say it isn't?
Gosh Enigma, it all makes perfect sense now. Here we are, having hundreds of thousands scientists who have studied for many, many years and done many years of research come to the conclussions of Global Warming, when a christian priest simply says "Global Warming doesn't exist". Brilliant!
You're just taking the easy road out.
It's much easier to just believe a god watches over you with a nice spot in heaven waiting for you and believe global warming doesn't exist to make life a bit more pleasant.
I agree with you Enigma, stop being a sheep.
But humor me, tell me why it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creationism?
ah well
everyone has the right to believe in something silly. I wont hold that against you.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
So when I ask you to clear up why it requires more faith, you simply back out?
The last I heard, though, is that churches are doing better with the bad economy.
People have found faith.
One good thing about taking away peoples' jobs and houses is that they learn what they value: