A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Reply to topic
agnosticatheist
First Post
PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2015 11:21 am  Consciousness and action Reply with quote

Apparently, consciousness is not necessary to explain an organism undertaking various actions. The neuronal correlates in the brain are sufficient to explain how an organism undertakes various actions.

So, it would seem that our (human's) consciousness is merely along for the ride.

Where does this fit into religion?

If our decisions are made in the brain and not by a paranormal soul, how can we be held accountable in an afterlife for our decisions? The physical brain made those decisions, not the soul.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 31: Mon Jul 27, 2015 5:00 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 30 by arian]
Discussions with you are particularity vexing because you seem to refuse to learn and just plow ahead repeating the same claims that have already been falsified as though repeating the mantra of argument from ignorance will somehow transmogrify your belief system into an acceptable model of reality. IT DOES NOT WORK!

Here's an example: You say: "But since there is no evidence of man creating man, THE Creator must have done it."

Here's the wiki write up: Argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four: true; false; unknown between true or false; being unknowable (among the first three).

I know that this basic information has been provided to you before. Now that you have it clearly at your disposal in a documented form, future use of an argument from ignorance can only result from:

1. your not reading this post; or
2. an inability to understand what is written; or
3. a willingness to lie.

Your continued use of flat statements of unsupported claims as though they were fact, such as: "God-Creator in the Bible is matter-of-fact" and "because as you well know Evolution claims that biological life came from a rock. A sweating rock." Furthermore, your refusal, when called on your misrepresentations, to backtrack and support such claims further impeaches your credibility.

Similarly your use of irrelevancies that you seem to think permit you to rest on your triumph such as, " ... Darwin never witnessed Evolution of one species evolving into another. All he did was point out some similarities in animals, .. that's it. Whoop-ti-du!?"

It only trumpets your ignorance of science and logic in general, and evolutionary theory specifically. It is not necessary to “witness” evolution to demonstrate it and similarities in animals were only the beginning. Permit me a simplistic example:
Six people are observed walking down the beach in three groups, a young girl, a man and a woman, and a man, a woman and a young child. They are a few hundred yards down the beach from you in plain sight. The young girl has walked straight down the upper beach and left a clear but indistinct path. The couple has walked at the high side of the wet sand and left tracks that were intermingled and often one on top of each other. The family of three has been running into the surf and back up the berm leaving loops of tacks some of which have been washed away by the surf. There is a separate (seventh) set of footprints that goes down the beach and curls around behind a big rock. What can you tell me, with a reasonable level of confidence, about the activities on the beach? Do you need to have witnessed everything that occurred to reconstruct the last fifteen minutes or so? Of course not, it is rather obvious.

While it is possible that the family of three walked out into the water and drowned and was replaced by a different family who disembarked from a UFO, that is rather unlikely. So might you have made the wrong inference? Sure … but you can check the sizes of the three sets of prints that they left at both ends of the beach and be pretty damn sure that they belonged to the same people (or not). Correct?

The couple with the intermingled tacks might not be traceable in detail, but are clearly two people who got from here to there via their path and print sizes.

The lone girl’s tacks are not the clearest, and again her path is approximate, track measurements are not possible, but again you know where she started and where she ended up. Her tracks are solitary and connect right to her, so it also is obvious.

The extra set of tracks tells you that someone else was there, but that’s all you know. If you follow them and your find someone at the end, you know what happened.

Darwin was able to observe the similarities in the finches that he found in the Galapagos and infer many things about the paths that they had taken. Work in the Galapagos since his visit, both on the morphology of the finches and their genetics has confirmed, in detail, Darwin’s original observations and conclusions, but you’d need to be an expert in both finch morphology and genetics (or to have trust in the hundreds, if not thousands, of such experts who did the work and reviewed it) to be able to do more than make meaningless noise on the topic, something that you are passing good at.

... and, your misunderstanding of and/or misstatement of things scientific such as: "I mean we have monkeys and all these other animals we humans supposedly evolved side by side with over the past 4.2 billion years, same solar system, same sun, on the same earth, same location, same air, same food source, same trees of which one makes their house for the night out of leaves, and we humans build elaborate houses with!?" comes dangerously close (at least IMHO) to willful ignorance, which is tantamount to telling willful lies.

More examples:

You say: "You see the scientific evidence is that there is a lizard, and that there is a bird, but NOT that the lizard evolved over billions and billions of years into a bird. No scientific evidence has ever come from such observation., .. because no one has ever observed such a thing. This is why they say it happened over billions of years. The same with any fairytale, so the children wouldn't ask what, why and where, the story teller says; "it happened a long, long time ago in a land far, far away"."

Again, all you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance. Yes there is paleontological evidence that there is a reptile; and later on there is a bird with very similar structures. The inference of evolution from reptile to bird is clear. The inference is confirmed by immunological and genetic studies. No one has to have actual observed the process occur any more than anyone had to watch the walkers on the beach actually take each and every step to know what occurred.

You make the ridiculous claims like, "Darwin never came up with any theories, only stories, .. Big Difference! One has to actually observe an animal mutating into another before we can call it a 'theory'."

But the reality is that such observations are not required and your claim is false, as I have already demonstrated.

You really do need to learn to differentiate between your beliefs and scientific fact, since they are radically different things. Belief is just an opinion or conviction; it is unsupported, it is unsubstantiated confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Contrast that with Scientific Fact: In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. A number of such Scientific Facts are assembled harmoniously to create a Scientific Theory.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 32: Thu Jul 30, 2015 6:34 pm
Reply

Like this post
Certain things like pain indications, digestion, heart beating, blood circulation, and to a certain extent, breathing, are all unconscious actions, but there are also conscious actions. The problem is different people are more unconscious than others. Some people walk passed McDonalds and smell the food and are compelled to either go there or they become so hungry that they are compelled to eat something, whereas someone who has more will power could smell food, even become hungry, but ultimately ignore those feelings. So freedom of will is not equal in all, but that doesn't mean anyone is just along for the ride, if they weren't conscious they'd be unconscious and asleep.

Here is a thread that you can debate me on: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28134
And if you would like to email me: juliancarmen@gmx.com

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 33: Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:53 am
Reply

Like this post
H.sapiens wrote:

arian wrote:

FarWanderer wrote:

[Replying to post 17 by arian]

You ever hear the expression: "Actions speak louder than words"?

Trees perhaps notwithstanding, animals at least communicate with each other all the time.


Yes I did hear that, but without words, or the minds ability to make the mouth, throat and lung say those words, there would not be any action.

Animals do communicate with each other, each given enough mind after their own kind, and that's it. There is no drive for them to evolve to a higher mental state, that was given to man only.


You seem to be suffering under some confusion concerning the evolution of organisms.


Well, that's because i don't have the face to say "I have 4.2 billion years of scientifically observed and documentation of evolution of the organisms."

H.sapiens wrote:
When increased communication is, on balance, advantageous to an organism, then over time communication abilities are enhanced, there is no “drive” toward a predefined situation or condition, there is no “higher” or “lower” state and nothing is “given” to any organism.


And you say this because you know, .. for a fact right? You see I couldn't say that because I couldn't claim 4.2 billion year old stories as scientific observations. Can you tell me how over time communication abilities of organisms are enhanced just by looking at dried up bones and fossils, each claimed to be a certain age?
Of course there is no “drive” toward a predefined situation or condition, there is no “higher” or “lower” state and nothing is “given” to any dried up bones and a bunch of fossils. Animals were created for just that, to be animals, to entertain us, and now for us to feed on.

H.sapiens wrote:
Current finding in anthropology and archeology indicates that Homo sapiens are not the only “kind” of human and thus the entire idea of “given to man only” is antediluvian claptrap.


So the current comparative study of human societies and cultures and their development found that humans are not the only kind of human? Have they found aliens among them? Or have they found little villages of the missing link? Talk about 'claptrap'!?

H.sapiens wrote:
arian wrote:

This is why we can't teach monkeys to really communicate even on a 2 year olds level, only responds to training and imitating some very basic moves like Koko, or a dog, or a pig. They are not able to use that and build on it, but a 2 year old human can. And boy do they ever. Actually it starts right after birth. My little 1 year old nephew can turn on his moms I-pad, flip through pages of aps, click on YouTube and finds His favorite show, and hits play. He watched his mom, and now he does it, he was not taught to do it.


No … wrong, wrong, wrong! You cannot teach monkeys to communicate as humans do for the same reason that you cannot teach humans to branchiate as monkeys do or to dive as whales do.


Cant branchiate like monkeys or dive like whales? As our illustrious Obama would say: "Yes We Can!" .. maybe not as well, but sure we can.

H.sapiens wrote:
All animals are advantaged and limited by the evolutionary background and to attempt to evaluate one specie on the basis of its ability to do (or not do) as another specie does is ignorant of the actual situation, especially when applied in a taxocentristic fashion.


I don't know what 'taxocentristic' means, but if you mean "as observed over the 4.2 billion years of biological evolution of single celled bacteria to man", well that's just a story. I am going by science, which is observing the world around me, and so far, even after 20 years of training, teaching, the monkey acts like a monkey. Also I have observed, that even though many humans have been reduced to believing they are animals, apes, they still act like humans, not apes. But of course that's old fashioned science, not the New World Ordered Science where any story, as long as it mocks our Creator, it is acceptable. Even if it's 13.75 billion years old.

H.sapiens wrote:
arian wrote:
The brain can't do anything, not even to make the body stand up, it's all our minds reaction on the brain that does that.


Those are unsupported claims, both as to the duality of a separate brain and mind as well as to your claim that “The brain can't do anything, not even to make the body stand up.”


Just as the computer is nothing without a programmer, the brain is nothing without it's controller the spirit/mind. Look up quantum reality, they are catching up with something I already know and can explain the basics of. Like the "Scientific Evidence of God", the Infinite Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am".

Look, you know how long it would take a brain to calculate all the muscle movements that is needed to run, duck, jump and shoot a basket? I have done some 5-axis programming and I tell you it takes months to create some programs, but to change that program to something completely different as the mind could change the direction of the body from making a jump shot, and then decide in seconds to go around the guy and dunk, well that would be impossible. But the mind can do it in a blink of an eye. You think that muscle memory could react that fast with such accuracy?
I support all my claims, now support your 4.2 billion year evolution? Or just the past 10,000 years of it? But saying that "Oh, there is a finch with short beaks, and then over there is one with long beak, .. EVOLUTION is now a fact! Yay!" And please no dried bones or fossils. A lizard fossil is a lizard, and a bird fossil is a bird, one did not evolve into the other, .. that's a story, and not even a sci-fientific one.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 34: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:55 pm
Reply

Like this post
arian wrote:

H.sapiens wrote:

arian wrote:

FarWanderer wrote:

[Replying to post 17 by arian]

You ever hear the expression: "Actions speak louder than words"?

Trees perhaps notwithstanding, animals at least communicate with each other all the time.


Yes I did hear that, but without words, or the minds ability to make the mouth, throat and lung say those words, there would not be any action.

Animals do communicate with each other, each given enough mind after their own kind, and that's it. There is no drive for them to evolve to a higher mental state, that was given to man only.


You seem to be suffering under some confusion concerning the evolution of organisms.


Well, that's because i don't have the face to say "I have 4.2 billion years of scientifically observed and documentation of evolution of the organisms."

I have already demonstrate that it is not necessary to have a frame by frame record of the entire process to be able to accurately infer what occurred. That is clear from just the fossil record, when you add to that the completely complementary genetics, immunology and embryology studies the case is airtight and further attempts at falsification based on nothing more than fabricated and mistranslated historical novels only makes you appear foolish.
arian wrote:

H.sapiens wrote:
When increased communication is, on balance, advantageous to an organism, then over time communication abilities are enhanced, there is no “drive” toward a predefined situation or condition, there is no “higher” or “lower” state and nothing is “given” to any organism.


And you say this because you know, .. for a fact right?

A fact? In your terms, yes!

But, in reality, you need to familiarize yourself with the some basic concepts that are usually taught in 5th grade:
The National Center for Science Education wrote:
Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work


Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

In my terms, I’d be hard pressed to describe anything as a “Fact,” but I think that, “When increased communication is, on balance, advantageous to an organism, then over time communication abilities are enhanced.” is supported by all the evidence that is available and is contradicted by none.
arian wrote:


You see I couldn't say that because I couldn't claim 4.2 billion year old stories as scientific observations.
It is good that you do not make that claim since there are no 4.2 billion year old "stories." But you are repeating yourself. Remember Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

There are, however, scientific inferences based on hard data, careful thought and peer review concerning what occurred 4.2 billion years ago. But ... your afflictions with hyperbolization and innuendo are showing. Knowledge is needed if one is to make a good inference. The better the knowledge, the better the inference. Ignorance results is poor inferences. Your ignorance of the fields of study involved here are resulting in an inability to evaluate the inferences. It is as though you were having trouble with the patterns in the sand I described earlier because you are trying to interpret them inferentially whilst ignorant that people can walk and ignorant that when they do so they leave tracks.
arian wrote:

Can you tell me how over time communication abilities of organisms are enhanced just by looking at dried up bones and fossils, each claimed to be a certain age?

First let me say that I am happy that you bypassed the typical YEC incredulity concerning fossil dating. That entire useless go-round only serves to demonstrate ignorance of well demonstrated basic scientific principles and wastes everyone’s time.
As far as using bones and fossils (I know of no "wet" bones of fossils older than a few years, save those that we removed from flooded caves and caverns) to delineate, directly, the development of communication abilities, but much can be hypothesized from the cladistic reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships.

W. T. Fitch and D. Reby, in Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Aug 22; 268(1477): 1669–1675.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1704 wrote:


Morphological modifications of vocal anatomy are widespread among vertebrates, and the investigation of the physiological mechanisms and adaptive functions of such variants is an important focus of research into the evolution of communication. The "descended larynx" of adult humans has traditionally been considered unique to our species, representing an adaptation for articulate speech, and debate concerning the position of the larynx in extinct hominids assumes that a lowered larynx is diagnostic of speech and language. Here, we use bioacoustic analyses of vocalizing animals, together with anatomical analyses of functional morphology, to document descended larynges in red and fallow deer. The resting position of the larynx in males of these species is similar to that in humans, and, during roaring, red-deer stags lower the larynx even further, to the sternum. These findings indicate that laryngeal descent is not uniquely human and has evolved at least twice in independent lineages. We suggest that laryngeal descent serves to elongate the vocal tract, allowing callers to exaggerate their perceived body size by decreasing vocal-tract resonant frequencies. Vocal-tract elongation is common in birds and is probably present in additional mammals. Size exaggeration provides a non-linguistic alternative hypothesis for the descent of the larynx in human evolution.

It appears likely that (in keeping with the TOE dictum, “hardware before software”) the human elongation of the vocal tract that permits speech occurred because it created an advantage by allowing early humanoids, who were down from the trees and fairly defenseless, to: “exaggerate their perceived body size by decreasing vocal-tract resonant frequencies.”

arian wrote:

Of course there is no “drive” toward a predefined situation or condition, there is no “higher” or “lower” state and nothing is “given” to any dried up bones and a bunch of fossils. Animals were created for just that, to be animals, to entertain us, and now for us to feed on.

H.sapiens wrote:
Current finding in anthropology and archaeology indicates that Homo sapiens are not the only “kind” of human and thus the entire idea of “given to man only” is antediluvian claptrap.


So the current comparative study of human societies and cultures and their development found that humans are not the only kind of human? Have they found aliens among them? Or have they found little villages of the missing link? Talk about 'claptrap'!?

Yes, we now know that as of 30,000 years ago there were at least 3, likely 4 and possibly more species of humans on earth. No aliens. Every single individual human is a missing link … most of your (even) recent ancestors are unknown missing links, but yes … what appear to have been Neanderthal habitations have been found.
arian wrote:

H.sapiens wrote:
arian wrote:

This is why we can't teach monkeys to really communicate even on a 2 year olds level, only responds to training and imitating some very basic moves like Koko, or a dog, or a pig. They are not able to use that and build on it, but a 2 year old human can. And boy do they ever. Actually it starts right after birth. My little 1 year old nephew can turn on his moms I-pad, flip through pages of aps, click on YouTube and finds His favorite show, and hits play. He watched his mom, and now he does it, he was not taught to do it.


No … wrong, wrong, wrong! You cannot teach monkeys to communicate as humans do for the same reason that you cannot teach humans to branchiate as monkeys do or to dive as whales do.


Cant branchiate like monkeys or dive like whales? As our illustrious Obama would say: "Yes We Can!" .. maybe not as well, but sure we can.

No, you can not branchiate like monkeys or dive like whales, you can, perhaps, do a poor imitation of what they do, but perform like they do? I think not. You lack the equipment. Similarly you can't teach monkeys to "really communicate even on a 2 year olds level," since monkeys lack the equipment.


arian wrote:


H.sapiens wrote:
All animals are advantaged and limited by the evolutionary background and to attempt to evaluate one specie on the basis of its ability to do (or not do) as another specie does is ignorant of the actual situation, especially when applied in a taxocentristic fashion.


I don't know what 'taxocentristic' means,
It mean limited by viewing things from the sole perspective of the taxons we belong to. Judging a bird on the basis of being a mammal, judging an invertebrate on the basis of being a vertebrate, judging a plant on the basis of being an animal, or judging a chimp on the basis of being a human.
arian wrote:

but if you mean "as observed over the 4.2 billion years of biological evolution of single celled bacteria to man", well that's just a story. I am going by science, which is observing the world around me,
There is where your difficulty lies, you do not understand what science is. You take a bizarrely constricted view, for what appears to be the sole purpose of trying vainly to score debating points.
arian wrote:

and so far, even after 20 years of training, teaching, the monkey acts like a monkey.

Even after a lifetime of training, teaching, you'd never be able to branchiate as monkeys do or to dive as whales do. The poor human acts like a human. Is anyone surprised at that?
arian wrote:

Also I have observed, that even though many humans have been reduced to believing they are animals, apes, they still act like humans, not apes. But of course that's old fashioned science, not the New World Ordered Science where any story, as long as it mocks our Creator, it is acceptable. Even if it's 13.75 billion years old.

Your strange political views are not relevant here, try to stay on topic.
arian wrote:


H.sapiens wrote:
arian wrote:
The brain can't do anything, not even to make the body stand up, it's all our minds reaction on the brain that does that.


Those are unsupported claims, both as to the duality of a separate brain and mind as well as to your claim that “The brain can't do anything, not even to make the body stand up.”


Just as the computer is nothing without a programmer, the brain is nothing without it's controller the spirit/mind. Look up quantum reality, they are catching up with something I already know and can explain the basics of. Like the "Scientific Evidence of God", the Infinite Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am".

Er ... what "scientific evidence" of God? I've yet to see any that passes even cursory muster. And as to your, "the Infinite Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit 'I Am Who I Am,'" it appears to me that you have not the vaguest idea of how and what you really are.
arian wrote:

Look, you know how long it would take a brain to calculate all the muscle movements that is needed to run, duck, jump and shoot a basket? I have done some 5-axis programming and I tell you it takes months to create some programs, but to change that program to something completely different as the mind could change the direction of the body from making a jump shot, and then decide in seconds to go around the guy and dunk, well that would be impossible. But the mind can do it in a blink of an eye. You think that muscle memory could react that fast with such accuracy?
If there is something hiding in there that is somehow relevant to our conversation I do wish you'd spit it out.
arian wrote:

I support all my claims,
As far as I can tell you have supported nothing.
arian wrote:

now support your 4.2 billion year evolution? Or just the past 10,000 years of it? But saying that "Oh, there is a finch with short beaks, and then over there is one with long beak, .. EVOLUTION is now a fact! Yay!" And please no dried bones or fossils. A lizard fossil is a lizard, and a bird fossil is a bird, one did not evolve into the other, .. that's a story, and not even a sci-fientific one.

Before you saw off the limb that you're way out on, you might want to watch this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYBRbCLI4zU). The whole thing would help you a lot (assuming you have the background to understand it) but, in any case, watch it from 1:02 to about 1:05.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 35: Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:33 am
Reply

Like this post
H.sapiens wrote:


I have already demonstrate that it is not necessary to have a frame by frame record of the entire process to be able to accurately infer what occurred. That is clear from just the fossil record, when you add to that the completely complementary genetics, immunology and embryology studies the case is airtight and further attempts at falsification based on nothing more than fabricated and mistranslated historical novels only makes you appear foolish.


Hello H.sapiens, and welcome back, .. wait, Oh yea I was gone. Thanks for your response, but as usual, nothing has changed, you stick with your religion because of the many sermons on genetics, immunology and embryology has convinced you that a fish came out of the water and created all them species including man. Yep, and looking at the embryos of man, there it is, gills on the baby which becomes part of the ears instead in just under 9 months. This has been proven wrong thousands of times, but hey, it looks like gills, so there, this proves there is no Creator God (of whom neither you nor Nova has even the tiniest, the most minuscule idea who He is?

I will not chase you down that rabbit hole again. I will only say a few things, like the 2 hour PBS documentary you shown me says that Believers say that what God has created does not change because it's perfect. So please tell me, do you (and your pastor Richard Dawkins) believe that we idiot, flat earth, science hating Believers of I.D. by our Creator believe all men are created 'identical'? That we believe every tree is exactly the same, and if you see one leaf you seen them all and refuse to believe the obvious before us?
One of the Evolutionists also said: "Why would the Creator make slightly different finches for each island?"
Oh boy, it's wonderful to be able to speak on the behalf of God your Creator you don't believe exists isn't it? You have taken the Bible and distort it as much as possible, and then made Evolution gospel, ignoring that God made (you know, like we make stuff) He made and formed Adam from the dust of the earth, creating atoms to cells to muscles, bones, hair, organs, .. everything from quantum specks of dust, which we can observe as it turns back to dust, but oh no, why would God waist His time creating different finches, turtles etc. for each close-by island? "No way" says Mr. Evolution, God just wouldn't do that.
Nope, and here is what really happened: "A quantum speck of we don't know what, in nothing of which the footprints can be traced back 13.75 billion years, and by magic (please note how many times the video refers to magic, it's almost like watching a Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Katie Perry music concert, a lot of reference to magic there also) it slowly mutated sweating rocks which mutated oceans, which gave birth to a single celled bacteria, and the rest is Magic."

How many debates we had where you guys tell me that a lizard does not turn into a bird, it doesn't happen like that arian! The lizard remains a lizard, and the bird remains a bird, and then you show me this video where it clearly depicts a fish like tadpole walk out of the water, then the scene goes to New York (or wherever) showing us man. Simple, a tadpole here, and a man there, and the magic of it is that the tadpole remains a tadpole, the giraffe remains a giraffe, the monkeys remains a monkey, leaving what? Leaving a Magical Fairytale between each one.

Look, no matter how much 'magic' you try to pump into children's minds which they grow up believing is true, scientific evidence is that what we observe around us, which is from simple logic of a child that it was meticulously, intelligently, artistically and imaginatively created by design and hard work. Simply, .. It was made.

And no matter how many humans they will collide into a wall to find the smallest particle of that human, it will not suddenly magically turn into a human, just as the quantum universe-speck will not mutate (remember we can't use the word 'create' when it comes to the BB-Evolution) a universe into existence. I can't believe anyone with even two years of education would think it could?

Now I would understand if scientists observed things popping out of nothing and evolving to beautiful and useful things, or tadpoles evolving legs, climbing trees as they are changing into monkeys, but that is NOT what the Big-bang Evolution is based on. It is all based on assumptions, and to make that macro jump, a lot of magical fairytales.

And I am still waiting for someone to show me the point in time that one species changes into another. I don't want to hear the old: "Oh well, that takes millions and even billions of years!" If you say one species changes into another, then show me that point in time, we have all the animals evolving at the same time, that evolved the exact same amount of time. It's all right here before us, the millions of year old ape, to the modern human. Where is that 'point' where one is an ape, still an ape, then wham! No longer an ape but a human? You know, like in the video, the tadpole changes into a human, just like that, that's what I want to see, which should be happening every minute with all these different species.

Please answer me that, don't give me these genes flipping light switches on and off, those are observations in change within weeks and months. Besides, the short beak finch born short beak finches, stop throwing your arms around and waving your hand (generic you, I mean Evolution as a whole) by taking the attention to gene switching along with million year old stories. Science observes the here and now, and the short beaked finches gives birth (lays eggs and whatever) to short beaked finches. Go ahead and put that short beaked finch on the long beaked island and see if the short beaked finch will lay an egg of a long beaked finch? Don't tell me those gene flipping takes millions of years, it happened. You guys say it did happen, so prove it! Move those finches and those turtles around a bit, it is bound to happen. Besides, it should be happening all the time, with all different species.

Here, how long does it take to wipe a species completely out? With good riffle it takes minutes. So the same with that long-story, if evolution is still happening, then we should be witnessing it all the time, I mean it's been 13.75 billion years, 4.2 billion just the biological part, isn't it 'time' to see one actually changing?

How about all the Big bangs? You guys say that the Higgs bosons are everywhere, why do we need Intelligent Design like the LHC to get a Big bang to happen, huh? Over the 13.75 billon years there should have been at least ONE other Higgs boson inflating within our universe wouldn't you say so? Why would they expect one to big-bang in the LHC? What, they have to dig for them bosons? If they are everywhere, space should be filled with them, you know, like black holes. They make it seem like we can't go anywhere (planetary travel) without running into one, just ask Stephen Hawking!

Also with consciousness and action. If it took billions of years for the brain to evolve a mind, then just like everything else in evolution, like the short and long beaked finches, it should take us thousands and even millions of years to change our mind. You guys say evolution is slow, so how can the brain evolve such complex thoughts, one completely different than the other in matter of seconds? I mean if someone from Australia ask me a question, shouldn't I have to travel to Australia to answer him? You know, because in evolution it was the environment that influenced the Australians question, so how could I answer it me being here in the States?

Thanks.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 36: Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:06 pm
Reply

Like this post (1): H.sapiens
arian wrote:

... do you (and your pastor Richard Dawkins) believe that we idiot, flat earth, science hating Believers of I.D. by our Creator believe all men are created 'identical'? That we believe every tree is exactly the same, and if you see one leaf you seen them all and refuse to believe the obvious before us?

Since they've already shown the capacity to deny observed speciation events, to deny the well-established genetic basis of common descent, to deny the clear evidence of the fossil record, and so on, there's no reason to think they'd have any problem denying anything else. As soon as you've allowed that facts, evidence, in short, reality cannot disprove your beliefs, you've opened the floodgates- anything goes.

Quote:

How many debates we had where you guys tell me that a lizard does not turn into a bird, it doesn't happen like that arian! The lizard remains a lizard, and the bird remains a bird, and then you show me this video where it clearly depicts a fish like tadpole walk out of the water, then the scene goes to New York (or wherever) showing us man. Simple, a tadpole here, and a man there, and the magic of it is that the tadpole remains a tadpole, the giraffe remains a giraffe, the monkeys remains a monkey, leaving what? Leaving a Magical Fairytale between each one.

A strawman- and, since it seems clear you've been around this particular block before, it can only be a deliberate one. I suppose that the fact that creationists never critique what evolutionary theory actually holds is a pretty strong argument in its favor.

Quote:
Look, no matter how much 'magic' you try to pump into children's minds which they grow up believing is true, scientific evidence is that what we observe around us, which is from simple logic of a child that it was meticulously, intelligently, artistically and imaginatively created by design and hard work. Simply, .. It was made.

This is neither supported by evidence, nor logic. An anthropocentric fantasy, little more.

Quote:

And I am still waiting for someone to show me the point in time that one species changes into another.

Easy.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Quote:

How about all the Big bangs? You guys say that the Higgs bosons are everywhere, why do we need Intelligent Design like the LHC to get a Big bang to happen, huh? Over the 13.75 billon years there should have been at least ONE other Higgs boson inflating within our universe wouldn't you say so? Why would they expect one to big-bang in the LHC? What, they have to dig for them bosons? If they are everywhere, space should be filled with them, you know, like black holes. They make it seem like we can't go anywhere (planetary travel) without running into one, just ask Stephen Hawking!

There really ought to be a facepalm emoticon.

Quote:

Also with consciousness and action. If it took billions of years for the brain to evolve a mind, then just like everything else in evolution, like the short and long beaked finches, it should take us thousands and even millions of years to change our mind.

No, that doesn't follow.

Quote:
You guys say evolution is slow, so how can the brain evolve such complex thoughts, one completely different than the other in matter of seconds?

Because having a thought isn't evolution.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 37: Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:55 am
Reply

Like this post
arian wrote:

H.sapiens wrote:

I have already demonstrate that it is not necessary to have a frame by frame record of the entire process to be able to accurately infer what occurred. That is clear from just the fossil record, when you add to that the completely complementary genetics, immunology and embryology studies the case is airtight and further attempts at falsification based on nothing more than fabricated and mistranslated historical novels only makes you appear foolish.

Hello H.sapiens, and welcome back, .. wait, Oh yea I was gone. Thanks for your response, but as usual, nothing has changed, you stick with your religion because of the many sermons on genetics, immunology and embryology has convinced you that a fish came out of the water and created all them species including man.

Not learned your lesson, eh? Science can not be lowered to the level of religion no matter how hard you try.

In his new book Faith vs. Fact, Jerry Coyne wrote:
The different methods that science and religion use to ascertain their “truths” couldn’t be clearer. Science comprises an exquisitely refined set of tools designed to find out what is real and to prevent confirmation bias. Science prizes doubt and iconoclasm, rejects absolute authority, and relies on testing one’s ideas with experiments and observations of nature. Its sine qua non is evidence — evidence that can be inspected and adjudicated by any trained and rational observer. And it depends largely on falsification. Nearly every scientific truth comes with an implicit rider: “Evidence X would show this to be wrong.”

Religion begins with beliefs based not on observation, but on revelation, authority (often that of scripture), and dogma. Most people acquire their faith when young via indoctrination by parents, teachers, or peers, so that religious “truths” depend heavily on who spawned you and where you grew up. Beliefs instilled in this way are then undergirded with defenses that make them resistant to falsification. While some religious people do struggle with their beliefs, doubt is not an inherent part of belief, not is it especially prized. No honors accrue to the Southern Baptist who points out that while there is plenty of evidence for evolution, there is none for the creation story of Genesis.

In the end, religious investigations of “truth,” unlike those of science, are deeply dependent on confirmation bias. You start with what you were taught to believe, or what you want to believe, and then accept only those facts that support your prejudices. This is the basis for the theological practice of “apologetics,” designed to defend religion against counterarguments and disconfirming evidence. The fact of evolution, for instance, was once seen by many as strong evidence against God. As we’ll see, apologists have now decided that it is exactly what we’d expect from a good creator, who would, of course, allow life to blossom gradually instead of producing a boring and static creation ex nihilo. In contrast, science has no apologetics, for we test our conclusions by trying to find counterevidence.

arian wrote:

Yep, and looking at the embryos of man, there it is, gills on the baby which becomes part of the ears instead in just under 9 months. This has been proven wrong thousands of times,
Really, that news to all of modern science and all of modern medicine. Please share your falsification.
arian wrote:

but hey, it looks like gills, so there, this proves there is no Creator God (of whom neither you nor Nova has even the tiniest, the most minuscule idea who He is?
Not much need to have even a miniscule idea concerning the noexistant.
arian wrote:


I will not chase you down that rabbit hole again. I will only say a few things, like the 2 hour PBS documentary you shown me says that Believers say that what God has created does not change because it's perfect.
Perfect? There is a litany of imperfection that you are ignoring ... classic denial.
arian wrote:

So please tell me, do you (and your pastor Richard Dawkins) believe that we idiot, flat earth, science hating Believers of I.D. by our Creator believe all men are created 'identical'? That we believe every tree is exactly the same, and if you see one leaf you seen them all and refuse to believe the obvious before us?
I have no pastor, and you should not call people such vile names. What ever gave you the idea that they are all exactly the same?
arian wrote:

One of the Evolutionists also said: "Why would the Creator make slightly different finches for each island?"
He was being ironic. I assume irony is wasted on you.
arian wrote:

Oh boy, it's wonderful to be able to speak on the behalf of God your Creator you don't believe exists isn't it? You have taken the Bible and distort it as much as possible,
Heck, I don't have to do that, the bible does that all on its own.
arian wrote:

and then made Evolution gospel, ignoring that God made (you know, like we make stuff) He made and formed Adam from the dust of the earth, creating atoms to cells to muscles, bones, hair, organs, .. everything from quantum specks of dust, which we can observe as it turns back to dust, but oh no, why would God waist His time creating different finches, turtles etc. for each close-by island? "No way" says Mr. Evolution, God just wouldn't do that.

Yup, irony and rhetorical flourishes are wasted on you.
arian wrote:

Nope, and here is what really happened: "A quantum speck of we don't know what, in nothing of which the footprints can be traced back 13.75 billion years, and by magic (please note how many times the video refers to magic, it's almost like watching a Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Katie Perry music concert, a lot of reference to magic there also) it slowly mutated sweating rocks which mutated oceans, which gave birth to a single celled bacteria, and the rest is Magic."
If that's what you want to believe, knock yourself out. I must warn you that it's more that a bit strange, however.
arian wrote:

How many debates we had where you guys tell me that a lizard does not turn into a bird, it doesn't happen like that arian! The lizard remains a lizard, and the bird remains a bird, and then you show me this video where it clearly depicts a fish like tadpole walk out of the water, then the scene goes to New York (or wherever) showing us man. Simple, a tadpole here, and a man there, and the magic of it is that the tadpole remains a tadpole, the giraffe remains a giraffe, the monkeys remains a monkey, leaving what? Leaving a Magical Fairytale between each one.
The evidence for descent with modification from a common ancestor is overwhelming. The evidence for genesis or intelligent design is nonexistent. All you seem to be able to do is spew warped and incorrect parodies of science. How about coming to real grips with the real data?
arian wrote:

Look, no matter how much 'magic' you try to pump into children's minds which they grow up believing is true, scientific evidence is that what we observe around us, which is from simple logic of a child that it was meticulously, intelligently, artistically and imaginatively created by design and hard work. Simply, .. It was made.
You're the one describing that as a "childish view." I agree with you on that one.
arian wrote:

And no matter how many humans they will collide into a wall to find the smallest particle of that human, it will not suddenly magically turn into a human, just as the quantum universe-speck will not mutate (remember we can't use the word 'create' when it comes to the BB-Evolution) a universe into existence. I can't believe anyone with even two years of education would think it could?
I see that you can't believe it, but what about someone who has more than two years of education ... they're teaching interesting stuff in the third grade now.
arian wrote:

Now I would understand if scientists observed things popping out of nothing and evolving to beautiful and useful things, or tadpoles evolving legs, climbing trees as they are changing into monkeys, but that is NOT what the Big-bang Evolution is based on. It is all based on assumptions, and to make that macro jump, a lot of magical fairytales.
That is a truley amazing non sequitur.
arian wrote:

And I am still waiting for someone to show me the point in time that one species changes into another.
It's been done any number of times, you say "no" without ever offering a supporting argument other than a parody.
arian wrote:
I don't want to hear the old: "Oh well, that takes millions and even billions of years!" If you say one species changes into another, then show me that point in time, we have all the animals evolving at the same time, that evolved the exact same amount of time. It's all right here before us, the millions of year old ape, to the modern human. Where is that 'point' where one is an ape, still an ape, then wham! No longer an ape but a human? You know, like in the video, the tadpole changes into a human, just like that, that's what I want to see, which should be happening every minute with all these different species.
Again, asked and answered ... many, many, times.
arian wrote:

Please answer me that, don't give me these genes flipping light switches on and off, those are observations in change within weeks and months. Besides, the short beak finch born short beak finches, stop throwing your arms around and waving your hand (generic you, I mean Evolution as a whole) by taking the attention to gene switching along with million year old stories.
Sorry, I guess you did not understand that part of the video.
arian wrote:

Science observes the here and now, and the short beaked finches gives birth (lays eggs and whatever) to short beaked finches. Go ahead and put that short beaked finch on the long beaked island and see if the short beaked finch will lay an egg of a long beaked finch?
Of course it would not. But the few offspring that are born with longer beaks will outcompete those with shorter beaks. Just look at what happened when the rain patterns shifted and food item availability shifted.
arian wrote:

Don't tell me those gene flipping takes millions of years, it happened. You guys say it did happen, so prove it!
It's been proven in literally thousands of peer reviewed papers. Do your own library work so that I don't have to embarrass you.
arian wrote:

Move those finches and those turtles around a bit, it is bound to happen. Besides, it should be happening all the time, with all different species.
Try rephrasing that, you're not very clear.
arian wrote:

Here, how long does it take to wipe a species completely out? With good riffle it takes minutes. So the same with that long-story, if evolution is still happening, then we should be witnessing it all the time, I mean it's been 13.75 billion years, 4.2 billion just the biological part, isn't it 'time' to see one actually changing?
Again, asked and answered, you've been provided with examples.
arian wrote:

How about all the Big bangs? You guys say that the Higgs bosons are everywhere, why do we need Intelligent Design like the LHC to get a Big bang to happen, huh? Over the 13.75 billon years there should have been at least ONE other Higgs boson inflating within our universe wouldn't you say so? Why would they expect one to big-bang in the LHC? What, they have to dig for them bosons? If they are everywhere, space should be filled with them, you know, like black holes. They make it seem like we can't go anywhere (planetary travel) without running into one, just ask Stephen Hawking!
What has this to do with evolution?
arian wrote:

Also with consciousness and action. If it took billions of years for the brain to evolve a mind,
That duality is an unsupported assumption.
arian wrote:

then just like everything else in evolution, like the short and long beaked finches, it should take us thousands and even millions of years to change our mind.
That is an unsupported assumption.
arian wrote:

You guys say evolution is slow, so how can the brain evolve such complex thoughts, one completely different than the other in matter of seconds?
You're using the word evolution with a different definition.
arian wrote:

I mean if someone from Australia ask me a question, shouldn't I have to travel to Australia to answer him? You know, because in evolution it was the environment that influenced the Australians question, so how could I answer it me being here in the States?
I have no idea of what you are talking about ... and neither, apparently, do you.
arian wrote:

Thanks.
Any time.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 38: Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:16 pm
Reply

Like this post
enviousintheeverafter wrote:

arian wrote:

... do you (and your pastor Richard Dawkins) believe that we idiot, flat earth, science hating Believers of I.D. by our Creator believe all men are created 'identical'? That we believe every tree is exactly the same, and if you see one leaf you seen them all and refuse to believe the obvious before us?


Since they've already shown the capacity to deny observed speciation events, to deny the well-established genetic basis of common descent, to deny the clear evidence of the fossil record, and so on, there's no reason to think they'd have any problem denying anything else. As soon as you've allowed that facts, evidence, in short, reality cannot disprove your beliefs, you've opened the floodgates- anything goes.


What observed speciation event? Oh, you mean "here is a short beak finch on this island, and there is the long beaked finch a few miles away on that island, .. the evidence: "Speciation" lol
Yes, there is a floodgate alright, a floodgate opened a hundred years ago on brainwashing the masses.

Quote:
arian wrote:

How many debates we had where you guys tell me that a lizard does not turn into a bird, it doesn't happen like that arian! The lizard remains a lizard, and the bird remains a bird, and then you show me this video where it clearly depicts a fish like tadpole walk out of the water, then the scene goes to New York (or wherever) showing us man. Simple, a tadpole here, and a man there, and the magic of it is that the tadpole remains a tadpole, the giraffe remains a giraffe, the monkeys remains a monkey, leaving what? Leaving a Magical Fairytale between each one.


A strawman- and, since it seems clear you've been around this particular block before, it can only be a deliberate one. I suppose that the fact that creationists never critique what evolutionary theory actually holds is a pretty strong argument in its favor.


Creationist scientists have over and over proven every 'No God Needed' claim by the Sci-Fientist false, in debates, even offering money for you guys to prove evolution etc. and all you have is (like in that video) magical stories of evolution.

Remember the key words people, repeat it before you teach science or talk about science, so the masses will associate them with science;

* Magic = science, like in 'the Magical World of Disney', or the 'Magical World of Evolution'.
* T-Rex = science
* Dinosaurs = science
* 60 million years ago = science
* Evolution = "Oh, you mean that science stuff?"
* Big-bang Theory = "Oh, that really complicated over our head science stuff?!"

Or the repeated statements like; "science is evolution"
The religious symbol E=mc2 is just more proof of the Vatican's Jesuit Big-bang!
Red shift, black holes, observing quasars giving birth to stars (I love that one especially, there are Stargazers who actually look for a quasar give birth, .. lol) oh yea, and "Special Relativity" just don't forget to mention 'Einstein' before it, with his now famous 'there is no God E=mc2' symbol. I love how College kids that want to look smart would wear a big E=MC2 symbol on their T-shirt, and a hat that says 'OBEY', lol.

Quasars - Firstly, stars go through the same process that we do in the sense that they are born, live, and then die. The difference is that they do it far more dramatically, and take a much longer time doing it. Depending on the mass of the star, the lifetime can range from a few million years to trillions of years!

Note how they say 'trillions of years', yet our universe is only 13.75 billion years old?? I guess this is so Star Gazers would not sit there watching for a quasar to give birth.

Quote:
arian wrote:
Look, no matter how much 'magic' you try to pump into children's minds which they grow up believing is true, scientific evidence is that what we observe around us, which is from simple logic of a child that it was meticulously, intelligently, artistically and imaginatively created by design and hard work. Simply, .. It was made.


This is neither supported by evidence, nor logic. An anthropocentric fantasy, little more.


Then show me an observed Big-bang, or even a Big-Swoosh, in nothing? Or tell me what's 'outside of our universe?', or what it is expanding into? It is expanding right? Remember you cannot have a Big-bang without it expanding! Not this: "No Johnny, .. Bad Johnny, never, ever ask 'what is the universe expanding into' you hear! Never, because Prof Krauss, and Rev. Dawkins will get very mad at you and call you stupid!!"

Quote:
arian wrote:
And I am still waiting for someone to show me the point in time that one species changes into another.


Easy.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation


Article-
Speciation in real time
The Central European blackcap

Story, ..

"In December of 2009, researchers from Germany and Canada confirmed that these migration and mating shifts have led to subtle differences between the two parts of the population. The splinter group has evolved rounder wings and narrower, longer beaks than their southward-flying brethren. The researchers hypothesize that both of these traits evolved via natural selection."


.. more story, nope! No observation of a short beaked blackcap laying an egg of a long beaked blackcap recorded, or videoed in 'Real Time' as the claim says. If they can claim of a quasar giving birth that takes trillions of years, then they should be able to catch a glimpse of an egg giving birth to another species.

I can make up stories too, magical or sci-fientific, but that's not scientific observation, nor do I try to pass it off as such.

Quote:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html


The rest is same-o, same-o. Like when they took the Jew Einstein to look through the big telescope with Hubble: "See Einstein, the universe IS expanding! Say it; 'the universe is expanding, .. the universe is expanding' or we'll throw you back to Germany, .. you wouldn't want to go back there now would you? Huh, .. huh!?"

And guess what, in few minutes looking through the telescope Einstein confessed, "it IS expanding, there are red stars all over the place, it's fact now, just as the red tail lights of cars are always moving away from us! Can I stay in the US now?" LOL.

Quote:
Quote:
How about all the Big bangs? You guys say that the Higgs bosons are everywhere, why do we need Intelligent Design like the LHC to get a Big bang to happen, huh? Over the 13.75 billon years there should have been at least ONE other Higgs boson inflating within our universe wouldn't you say so? Why would they expect one to big-bang in the LHC? What, they have to dig for them bosons? If they are everywhere, space should be filled with them, you know, like black holes. They make it seem like we can't go anywhere (planetary travel) without running into one, just ask Stephen Hawking!


There really ought to be a facepalm emoticon.


I know what you mean, when it comes to BB-Evolution, I used just about all the emoticons that shows disappointment available, .. it won't change anything, not sure debating will either!? But I have hope, .. So tell me, How many quantum specks of whatever's, existed at the Planch Epoch? Was it just ONE string or Higgs boson, or were there millions, even trillions, and like evolution, the ones that couldn't survive just vanished back into the 'nothing'?
Hey, maybe archeology should start digging in 'nothing' to see if they could find some 'universe-fossils', or dead dried up Higgs bosons or something?

Quote:
arian wrote:
Also with consciousness and action. If it took billions of years for the brain to evolve a mind, then just like everything else in evolution, like the short and long beaked finches, it should take us thousands and even millions of years to change our mind.


No, that doesn't follow.


So how does I.D. like what they're doing at CERN and the LHC, fit in with evolution? I understand a lightning hitting a tree and start a fire that goes like crazy consuming everything around, the dried brushes first obviously, and the heavier big trees last, .. but that's not planned or done on purpose. But us debating, and them working hard trying to create a Universe, or even a Parallel Universe at LHC is NOT evolution, but intentional, with freedom of choice which is NOT PART of Evolution and you know how upset Richard Dawkins would get if anyone claimed it was! So how do you fit I.D. into this 'purposeless, mindless, cosmic accident by no will or plan of anyone but chance alone Big-bang Evolution? All the complex things just happened, and then after billions of years here we have free will to design whatever we want? That does not follow for sure, if it's evolution it has to follow evolution, which includes waiting for that next response to evolve.

This follows and that doesn't follow is not debating, explaining to me how freedom of choice could evolve from evolution that got us to a point we have a brain, then suddenly start creating things and even the possibility of 'intentionally' going against nature which you say is not evolution just don't seem to fit!?
Please don't point to some religious text, instead explain in your own words how YOU understand this?
It's like if a Muslim who you argued about women's rights with, gives you the Koran and says "here, it explains all that in this Holy Book!"

"But.." you would beg, .. "but can we debate this?"

Then throws you a bunch of quotes from the Koran, and every consecutive questions you may have is met with more quotes!

Funny how Believers are not allowed to just randomly quote the Bible, but Evolutionists are allowed to throw quotes even from cave paintings and not debate it!? Should we oppose those quotes, we get more quotes, and then told "it's not my fault you fail to understand and accept the BB-Evolution facts, I've shown you the "Real Time Evidence" in that article, what else do you want? Sad

Quote:
arian wrote:
You guys say evolution is slow, so how can the brain evolve such complex thoughts, one completely different than the other in matter of seconds?


Because having a thought isn't evolution.


EXACTLY!

Now come on and use that brilliant mind of yours and keep going, .. if the 'thought' isn't the result of evolution, .. then maybe the brain isn't either? And, .. and maybe the universe-speck didn't reside in no space, in no time, in nothing for eons before all that pressure and heat and all that stuff that was going on within that speck before it exploded is just stories! I mean a lot of things are claimed were happening to that quantum speck before there was space nor time, I mean is that logical? Just ask yourselves: "What would Spock say?"

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 39: Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:09 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 38 by arian]


Warning Moderator Warning


The entire tone of your post is too uncivil for me. Please tone down the sarcasm and dismissiveness.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 40: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:55 pm
Reply

Like this post
arian wrote:

Yes, there is a floodgate alright

Exactly; once you're committed to dismissing fact and evidence in favor of religious myths, pretty much anything goes.

Quote:

Creationist scientists have over and over proven every 'No God Needed' claim by the Sci-Fientist false

No- sadly, they've done no such thing. They may have tried, though.

And, of course, there is no such thing as a "creation scientist"; but I knew what you meant.

Quote:

The religious symbol E=mc2 is just more proof of the Vatican's Jesuit Big-bang!

"Religious symbol E=mc2"? Lol, oh dear... you're proving my point about opening the floodgates to any sort of crackpot silliness. Thanks, I guess?

Quote:

Then show me an observed Big-bang, or even a Big-Swoosh, in nothing?

A false dichotomy, of course, but the evidence for the BBT is well-documented. On the other hand, the design argument has been refuted (starting with Hume)- the supposed evidence of purposeful design can't stand up to scrutiny, the fact is we don't really know what would look like purposeful design on the scale of a universe, and insofar as we have any idea what such features would be, our universe does not exhibit them.

Quote:
Or tell me what's 'outside of our universe?', or what it is expanding into? It is expanding right? Remember you cannot have a Big-bang without it expanding! Not this: "No Johnny, .. Bad Johnny, never, ever ask 'what is the universe expanding into' you hear! Never, because Prof Krauss, and Rev. Dawkins will get very mad at you and call you stupid!!"

No, not because Krauss or Dawkins will get mad at you, but because the question is ill-posed; the universe is not expanding into anything. This is a common misconception, so you can hardly be blamed for your error. This may help.

Quote:

I can make up stories too, magical or sci-fientific, but that's not scientific observation, nor do I try to pass it off as such.

I gather that you have no substantive rebuttal to this disproof of your claim. Gotcha.

Quote:

I know what you mean, when it comes to BB-Evolution

What is BB-Evolution? Is this a new kind of evolution? Or a new hypothesis about the Big Bang? Or are you just lumping in two theories in different domains that have virtually nothing to do with one another (save that you aren't especially familiar with either one)?

Quote:

So how does I.D. like what they're doing at CERN and the LHC, fit in with evolution? I understand a lightning hitting a tree and start a fire that goes like crazy consuming everything around, the dried brushes first obviously, and the heavier big trees last, .. but that's not planned or done on purpose. But us debating, and them working hard trying to create a Universe, or even a Parallel Universe at LHC is NOT evolution, but intentional, with freedom of choice which is NOT PART of Evolution and you know how upset Richard Dawkins would get if anyone claimed it was! So how do you fit I.D. into this 'purposeless, mindless, cosmic accident by no will or plan of anyone but chance alone Big-bang Evolution? All the complex things just happened, and then after billions of years here we have free will to design whatever we want? That does not follow for sure, if it's evolution it has to follow evolution, which includes waiting for that next response to evolve.

Clearly you're misinformed about the nature of CERN's experiments. They're not trying to "create a universe". Try looking at their homepage- http://home.web.cern.ch/about

They're looking for subatomic particles, for the most part.

Quote:
This follows and that doesn't follow is not debating

Having a thought, or changing one's mind, is not a case of biological evolution, so your inference was just inapplicable.

Quote:

if the 'thought' isn't the result of evolution

That's not what I said. Having thoughts is certainly a result of evolution, but it is not itself evolution. I can't imagine what would make you think that having a thought is itself a case of evolution- or, more pertinently, what you're doing debating evolution if you haven't even bothered acquainting yourself with the basics of what evolution is first.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version