Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
436

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

…And no, a dog does not beget dogvarks, but a zebra and a donkey get offspring, a wolf and a dog does, even a lion and a tiger can have offspring. [/quote]

You’re making MY point. Did I not just say this above?

Horse animals started out horse animals. They are horse animals. They will always be horse animals. They will never evolve into hippos. This is exactly what the Bible is talking about when it mentions “kinds.”

BTW, even though they are somewhat closely related, the offspring of a horse and donkey - a mule - is sterile. Ligers are sterile too. Should tell you something about Nature’s inability to stray very far from “kinds.”[quote]

I have red that some genetists claim that even a human and a chimpanzee could have offspring. So far luckily unproven.[/quote]

Lemme know when it happens. If it was easy it would’ve by now. BTW, I’ll guarantee you “some geneticists” are only speculating about this happening in some bizarre lab experiment. Betcha Jamie Eason is not gettin’ pregnant anytime soon by bending over in a short skirt and no panties in the chimp cage at the zoo.[quote]

So, if you put aside your beliefs for a while, you can see, definitely you can see, that the case for adaptation is quite convincing.[/quote]

Fixed that for you in the spirit of accuracy.[quote]

It is all logically arranged - biology, genetics, geology and even physics, they are intertwined. [/quote]

Indeed. I agree. You make an excellent case for a Creator here. “Logical arrangement” indicates a logical designer. Keep this up and you’ll be debating this from my side of the table.[quote]

E: that’s why it’s called macroevolution, the timescales are too big for us to see, [/quote]

Which is precisely why the scientific method cannot be employed in this instance. No observation and experimentation is possible. Under these conditions this theory BARELY if at all becomes anything more than a hypothesis. Theories require observation and experimentation. Facts require much more.

Macroevolution is a badly flawed hypothesis at best.[quote]

we can only imagine them,[/quote]

Now we’re getting somewhere! I MEAN NOW WE ARE FLAT OUT GITTIN’ SOMEWHERE, BABY! Let’s examine those words closely…[center]“we can only [u]imagine[/u] them”[/center]

Baby, sugar pie, honey punkin…you know what that there “imagine” stuff sounds like to a simple country boy like me?..

[center][u]FAITH[/center][/u]

Good ol’ fashioned faith.

How many times has dear ol’ Uncle Push mentioned that faith is an integral part of an evolutionist’s way of thinkin’?

Welcome to the world of faith, Mr. Kaleppi. You had it all along and didn’t even realize it. Welcome anyway.
[/quote]

I have no problems with faith, to paraphrase good ol’ Wittgenstein, we must have faith that the sun is going up tomorrow, too. That’s the lot of mankind, we must assume things.
Your problem is that you can’t accept geological time, for known reasons. If you did you wouldn’t have a problem with evolution. And likewise my problem with creationism is the Bible, actually the whole thought is pretty absurd if you ask me, since I can’t see anything divine in the Bible. It’s just a book, even though a special one.
But I didn’t pop in to argue, I just wanted to point out to BBriere that he should plan an attack on modern versions of evolutionary theory, not the original one which is 150 years old.

P.S. I think you are just pulling my leg with these stories about aardvarks and sterile ligers. Shirley you knew that I wasn’t saying that new species are made by mating relatives.

437

First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin’s Theory of Universal Common Ancestry

The results of the study confirm that Darwin had it right all along.

438

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

…As far as the last paragraph of that post… lets really not go there. If we go there it turns into a dick waving shit flinging contest. I could just as easily say that the reason creationism is common among Christians is that the alternative is ‘soooooooo repulsive’. Oh my God, there’s no Christian God…? We can’t have that… [/quote]

Exactly. You are exactly right. When talking about the distant, unobservable past you have to make certain assumptions. And those assumptions are based on faith.

Creationists have faith.

Evolutionists have faith.

The difference is that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, evolutionists insist they don’t.[/quote]

Here is a point I’ve tried to make a few times. Faith isn’t just for the religious. Everyone puts faith in something. If they didn’t they would spend their entire lives hiding in cave somewhere because they couldn’t trust or believe anything.

439

[quote]ephrem wrote:
First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin’s Theory of Universal Common Ancestry

The results of the study confirm that Darwin had it right all along.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100512131513.htm[/quote]

I’ll admit that their are definite similarities between every living organism on Earth. For instance, we are all carbon baed, and we all contain proteins. However, I would have to see more than one study to convince me that all organisms evolved from the same single cellular organism. I’m not just being hard headed and denying everything. I’ve read similar articles by EVOLUTINARY biologists that claim it is virtually impossible that all life could have arose from one organism and that many fossil records are lacking to prove a lot of claims made for extreme changes made by species over time.

Here is one such article that cites James Valentine who is a paleobiologist at UC-Berkley.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119

440

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I’ll admit that their are definite similarities between every living organism on Earth. For instance, we are all carbon baed, and we all contain proteins. However, I would have to see more than one study to convince me that all organisms evolved from the same single cellular organism. I’m not just being hard headed and denying everything. I’ve read similar articles by EVOLUTINARY biologists that claim it is virtually impossible that all life could have arose from one organism and that many fossil records are lacking to prove a lot of claims made for extreme changes made by species over time.

Here is one such article that cites James Valentine who is a paleobiologist at UC-Berkley.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119[/quote]

The studies on what he says are available via Google.

441

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
First Large-Scale Formal Quantitative Test Confirms Darwin’s Theory of Universal Common Ancestry

The results of the study confirm that Darwin had it right all along.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100512131513.htm[/quote]

I’ll admit that their are definite similarities between every living organism on Earth. For instance, we are all carbon baed, and we all contain proteins. However, I would have to see more than one study to convince me that all organisms evolved from the same single cellular organism. I’m not just being hard headed and denying everything. I’ve read similar articles by EVOLUTINARY biologists that claim it is virtually impossible that all life could have arose from one organism and that many fossil records are lacking to prove a lot of claims made for extreme changes made by species over time.

Here is one such article that cites James Valentine who is a paleobiologist at UC-Berkley.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119[/quote]

…recent discoveries in Australia of ancient fossils some 3,5 billions years old gives nature a decent amount of time to develop viable lifeforms which, when the conditions were right, diversified to make use of previously unavailable ecological niches [Ecological niche - Wikipedia]. Apparently, plant life underwent a similar explosion in diversity 450 million years ago…

442

You can believe Genesis literally, and still believe in evolution. That is, one does not have to take the account of creation literally, to take Genesis as literally inspired by God. Thought I’d add that since it’s discussed so little. If I say that Genesis is the word of God as shared with the author, I’ve taken it literally. Now, the author being an ancient man, with an extremely short life span (as compared to the cosmos and it’s continuing creation/destruction), would never be able to to bear witness to literal creation. He wouldn’t even began to understand what he sees, not to mention that he’d be dead for eons before the first amino acids on earth were being displayed. The account of creation is to get some very basic ideas across, in a very short period of time. There is one God. No GodS of earth, water, wind, light, vegetation, animals, celestial lights, etc. One God.

There is no more need to take Creation any more literally than the prodigal son (as far as actual historical existence), the Good Samaritan (same), or the dense symbolism of Revelation (beasts rising out of the ocean). Regardless, God inspired these accounts literally. Not that these accounts literally took place as stated. If a Christian comes away with the true messages; one God of all creation (no matter the tools used), joy over a returning son, the unexpected kindness of the other when your own neighbors pass you by facedown in the dirt., Christ’s final return at the end time, etc., then he’s doing it right.

444

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You can believe Genesis literally, and still believe in evolution. That is, one does not have to take the account of creation literally, to take Genesis as literally inspired by God. Thought I’d add that since it’s discussed so little. If I say that Genesis is the word of God as shared with the author, I’ve taken it literally. Now, the author being an ancient man, with an extremely short life span (as compared to the cosmos and it’s continuing creation/destruction), would never be able to to bear witness to literal creation. He wouldn’t even began to understand what he sees, not to mention that he’d be dead for eons before the first amino acids on earth were being displayed. The account of creation is to get some very basic ideas across, in a very short period of time. There is one God. No GodS of earth, water, wind, light, vegetation, animals, celestial lights, etc. One God.

There is no more need to take Creation any more literally than the prodigal son (as far as actual historical existence), the Good Samaritan (same), or the dense symbolism of Revelation (beasts rising out of the ocean). Regardless, God inspired these accounts literally. Not that these accounts literally took place as stated. If a Christian comes away with the true messages; one God of all creation (no matter the tools used), joy over a returning son, the unexpected kindness of the other when your own neighbors pass you by facedown in the dirt., Christ’s final return at the end time, etc., then he’s doing it right.[/quote]

That doesn’t fly, Sloth, and I’ve already explained why.[/quote]

It does fly. I see it flying in mine own religious life.

445

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

…As far as the last paragraph of that post… lets really not go there. If we go there it turns into a dick waving shit flinging contest. I could just as easily say that the reason creationism is common among Christians is that the alternative is ‘soooooooo repulsive’. Oh my God, there’s no Christian God…? We can’t have that… [/quote]

Exactly. You are exactly right. When talking about the distant, unobservable past you have to make certain assumptions. And those assumptions are based on faith.

Creationists have faith.

Evolutionists have faith.

The difference is that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, evolutionists insist they don’t.[/quote]

Here is a point I’ve tried to make a few times. Faith isn’t just for the religious. Everyone puts faith in something. If they didn’t they would spend their entire lives hiding in cave somewhere because they couldn’t trust or believe anything. [/quote]

And again, the point that there is a difference between faith with reason and faith against reason.

448

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

And again, the point that there is a difference between faith with reason and faith against reason.[/quote]

But you will shout from your soapbox that only your faith is reasonable. [/quote]

My faith that scientists are drawing the best conclusions about the creation of the world they can based on the data available to them, and that these conclusions will be modified or disproven as more data becomes available?

Yes.

Your faith that sky wizard magically poof’d everything into existence because your fear punishment in the afterlife forces you to take every word of the bible as literal historic fact?

No.

Your faith that a flood covered the entire earth for 40 days, when all archaeological evidence disproves it?

No.

Your faith that a man walked on water, another man parted a sea, that magical horseys will fly out of the sky one day, that winter happens because some chick ate pomegranate seeds, that an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient omnibenevolent will eternally punish Ghandi for not following Yeshua Ben Yosef?

No. Sorry. Beyond the threat that not believing this impossible shit will get you in trouble, there is zero reason to believe it. Zero.

449

But, hey, maybe God put all that evidence of past cultures being uninterrupted by a 40 day flood there… to, um, disprove rational interepretation of scripture!

And maybe he made all those archaeological dating techniques consistantly reveal things to be far older than 6,000 years (older than your bible says they possibly can be)… because, um… SHUT UP YOU’RE GOING TO HELL IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE!

453

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

And again, the point that there is a difference between faith with reason and faith against reason.[/quote]

But you will shout from your soapbox that only your faith is reasonable. [/quote]

My faith that scientists are drawing the best conclusions about the creation of the world they can based on the data available to them, and that these conclusions will be modified or disproven as more data becomes available?[/quote]

Many well qualified, highly esteemed scientists don’t buy into it. I have listed hundreds of names on other threads.

“Your” scientists don’t trump other scientists except in your own mind and because your faith compels it.[/quote]

When exactly did I say I believe in the current theory of evolution exactly as it stands?

I said I believe that’s the conclusion many are coming to based on the evidence they have, and that these conclusions will be modified or disproven as more evidence is gathered.

You keep ignoring this because you seem to think that discrediting the current theory of evolution somehow validates your impossible explanation.

Read back a bit, to where I said both can be wrong.

[quote]

Your faith that sky wizard magically poof’d everything into existence because your fear punishment in the afterlife forces you to take every word of the bible as literal historic fact?[/quote]

You concocted this rhetorical fallacy based strictly on your faith. Fear of punishment in the afterlife has nothing to do with my faith in creation. It is however convenient for you to play this schoolboy taunting game because you can’t employ a good defense of your position on the merits.

Your faith and its accompanying weaknesses always reveals themselves when you slip into ridicule mode aka Makavali. It’s a clear sign of being down on the mat.[/quote]

If your faith has nothing to do with fear of punishment, why was your first response to tell me that I would be standing before God one day? What were the implications there?

Or are you another coward who writes things saturated with implications but swears there were none there when they get called out?

Also, what exactly is my position? Again, you ignorantly imply that my position is that they current theory of evolution is pure fact exactly as it is.

[quote]

Your faith that a flood covered the entire earth for 40 days, when all archaeological evidence disproves it?

Au contraire. The archeological evidence is very, very strong. However, if one operates entirely within the uniformitarian model then yes, the Flood becomes impossible in spite of its strengths.[/quote]

Link to this evidence provided by nonchristian sources?

[quote]

Your faith that a man walked on water, another man parted a sea, that magical horseys will fly out of the sky one day, that winter happens because some chick ate pomegranate seeds, that an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient omnibenevolent will eternally punish Ghandi for not following Yeshua Ben Yosef?[/quote]

When losing an argument, always divert, divert, divert. You’re trotting out the same ol’ worn out debating methods that have been utilized by millions who can’t discuss the topic at hand intelligently.[/quote]

The debating method of pointing out that the things you believe to have literally happened are literally impossible?

Yes. How dare I. Clearly this means I’m wrong, for pointing out that impossible things are impossible.

[quote]

No. Sorry. Beyond the threat that not believing this impossible shit will get you in trouble, there is zero reason to believe it. Zero.[/quote]

Reason, Mr. CappedMakavaliPlanet, is something you have made little use of in this debate. You’re not skilled enough at this to toss around that lofty word with any degree of credibility.[/quote]

You’re right. I don’t have the skill to believe impossible things happened because someone else said they did.

454

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Horse animals started out horse animals. They are horse animals. They will always be horse animals. They will never evolve into hippos. This is exactly what the Bible is talking about when it mentions “kinds.”[/quote]

What makes you think evolution suggests that horses can somehow “out-mutate” their horse ancestry?

You seem to be rehashing the crocoduck defense.

455

Oh dear. That’s not quoted properly at all. Drat.