[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
borrek wrote:
So heres a question for the self-proclaimed geniuses, and scientific minds of this thread: All of the shit that makes up humans today had to come from somewhere. Where did it come from? Everything has a genesis.
…i don’t know, but believing god did it is an impossibility for me…
Oh, someday you’ll believe it.
…with equal certainty i can guarantee you that day will never come…
You are in no position to make any such guarantee, oh man, proud man, drest in a little brief authority, most ignorant of what he’s most assured…
…i’m in no position to make such guarantee, but you are? What does you little bible say about hubris?
Don’t call my statement a guarantee; call it a theory.
What my little Bible (are you the capitalization rebel I was referring to earlier? I can’t remember) says about hubris, once again, is, [i]"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…[/i]
THAT, my Netherlander chum, is what little Bibles, big Bibles and even medium sized Bibles say about hubris.[/quote]
…so you admit that by your own standards you’re a fool? Or is it because you believe to know there’s somehow a loophole here for you? How does that work exactly?
[quote]pushharder wrote:…so you admit that by your own standards you’re a fool? Or is it because you believe to know there’s somehow a loophole here for you? How does that work exactly?
Lame. But hey, he who must flail, let him flail.
Read the whole passage, cherry-picker. (Do the Dutch understand the American term, “cherry-picker”?)
Never answered my deadlifting question, btw.[/quote]
…oh, i understand that you love to decide for other’s how things are like. How you use your bible to slap dissenters upside the head, but that the book doesn’t apply you at all. Exactly the behaviour i’ve come to expect from ‘christians’…
[quote]borrek wrote:
So heres a question for the self-proclaimed geniuses, and scientific minds of this thread: All of the shit that makes up humans today had to come from somewhere. Where did it come from? Everything has a genesis.[/quote]
No idea. That’s not what we’re discussing though.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
For emphasis again, let me repeat, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”[/quote]
No where have I professed myself to be wise. I would always claim the opposite; I�¢??m still learning.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The moth study at best illustrates micro-evolution - something we all can agree occurs. And the study itself has been discredited. You don’t think so. Fine, you hang on to that one.[/quote]
Er, I know so and have provided you with evidence. Please provide me with evidence that it’s been discredited, aside from that palpably and demonstrably wrong article that you gave?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab wrote:
Atavisms and vestigial organs/parts
Like the appendix you mentioned earlier? LOL Sorry, I do understand how this fits your hypothesis but it does not provide evidence of evolution. Do your homework.[/quote]
Sorry but itÃ?¢??s quite frustrating that you tell me to do my homework, when evidently you haven’t done yours; leg bones in snakes, tail bones in humans, extra toes in horses, teeth in chickens, yes, the appendix (newer research has claimed it has uses true, but the human body does just fine without it and this research is yet to be fully supported), whales with leg bones, gills on human babies; there are many more.
These provide evidence because evolution predicts that we will find such things and lo! We do. This is the predictive power a scientific theory needs to have; what predictions does creationism make?
Not hardly, friend. Do some more research.[/quote]
At the outset here, I need to reiterate that biologists do not consider there to be a huge difference between macro or micro evolution. If you want to play the science game, use the words as they are intended. But anyway;
I’ve already done it (the research), friend, I suggest you do the same;
You just cited THE single greatest evidence for intelligent design. You really don’t think this stuff through, do you?[/quote]
How on earth is this evidence for intelligent design? This comment baffles me. A self replicating molecule that can be affected by natural selection, just as evolution predicts, is somehow now evidence for ID? Please, again, provide me with evidence.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Human chromosome no. 2
Explain why this is evidence for macro-evolution.[/quote]
Human chromosome no. 2 is virtually conclusive evidence of common descent of humans from an ape like ancestor which we share with the other African apes (chimps + bonobos, gorillas, orangutans). Quite clearly we don�¢??t precisely resemble any of our closest cousins, and, knowing that we are all descended from the same common ancestor, we can thus see very strong evidence that macro-evolution has happened.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Retroviruses
See above.[/quote]
You do know that micro-evolution is evidence for macro don’t you?
Genetic distances
This is “evidence” that can be explained in more than one “origins” model. Please discuss how it supports your position.
[quote]pushharder wrote:Fossils/the fossil record (all of which are transitional, just as all living organisms are transitional)
The weakest “evidence” evolutionists have in all reality. No transitional organisms have ever been proven. One can’t just stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and hum “nah, nah, nah,” they’re all transitional species when it is patently obvious they are simply extinct species.[/quote]
Yes they are extinct species; yes they are also extinct transitional species. Please sort your scientific definitions out. As I have said before the term species is only made possible by extinctions and time. I re-postulate the intermediary between humans and chimps, that can mate with both of us; what then happens to your definition of species? You have been told about birds who form an unbroken line of mating possibility one way around the world, yet on either side of the line cannot mate; one definition of different species.
You are a transitional form between your dad and your children. And before you shout “that’s micro” again, please just take the time to think through the implications of millions of years of gradual change via these transitional forms. Do a thought experiment using the predictions of evolution; imagine an unbroken line of your father, your fathers father etc. This line goes back 10 millions years. If you zoom in to a thousand, or even ten thousand year shot you wonÃ?¢??t see much difference between fathers (maybe height, clothes). Even a hundred thousand years would not seem a huge difference, but after a million years, can you imagine how different that father would be to your son? The beauty is, you donÃ?¢??t need to imagine it that strongly; we have the fossils that support evolutionary theory, and we have the dna evidence. Evolution made a prediction; evidence discovered supports it. This is how science works. If any evidence had been found that was contrary, evolution would have been thrown out; scientists are not sentimental about theories.
Again, your definition of species is far too narrow, and is not really used by biologists in that way. Another example is bacteria, which are a-sexual. What use is “species” in describing bacteria?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mutations
Another weak “evidence”. Citing mutations actually hurts your cause much more than it helps. Mutations do NOT benefit their hosts. Mutations would tend to retard evolution not enhance it.[/quote]
Not true, most mutations are actually neutral. Neutral theory of molecular evolution predicts that most evolutionary changes are due to the genetic drift of neutral alleles (which fits with the definition of evolution as changes in the frequency of alleles over time). And before you say it, this does not negate natural selection.
Mutations which are deleterious, or beneficial can be acted on by natural selection. Some mutations do benefit hosts, some don’t; most are neutral.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Observed instances of speciation
Micro-evolution.[/quote]
Er, macro evolution is the mechanism by which speciation happens.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Comparative anatomy
An example of intelligent design.[/quote]
How exactly? Again provide evidence rather than meaningless statements. For example as I mentioned previously, eyes; ours are actually rather poor compared to many organisms, but rather good compared to others. We can see by comparative anatomy that half an eye is better than a quarter of an eye and a quarter of an eye is better than an eighth, and so on.
This also links to those species that look suspiciously like other species, but who aren�¢??t as closely related as you think; hyenas and wolves, or Russian silver foxes and dogs. A big one for scientists was this; to look at them, you might conclude that pigs and hippopotamuses are quite closely related. And that, is what biologists did conclude, that is until DNA came about and we learned that actually, hippos are more closely related to whales! This is an example of how comparative anatomy can confuse us, which is a brilliant example of evolutionary convergence; natural selection pressures which are similar, even in different corners of the earth, produce similar results.
Evolution makes this prediction, and again we have the evidence to support it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Geographical distribution
Not really evidence at all.
[/quote]
Look to native American Indians, they in complexion look suspiciously like east Asians. However, in their folk-lore they claim they’ve been there the whole time! Well, there is an easy way to figure this one out; by looking at DNA we find that the closest relatives to native Americans, are in fact east Asians. However, their geographical distribution explains the differences that have accrued over time.
Geographical distribution is what accounts for differences in evolutionary paths, and by tracing these paths back we see that they all eventually start converging in Africa. More evidence that supports predictions made by evolution? You better believe it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
Something that is observable and testable and knowable. Not evidence of macro-evolution but rather micro once again.[/quote]
It’s evidence of evolution, full stop. I refer you again to the fact that biologists don’t see a huge difference between macro or microevolution, despite what creationists try and claim.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Interspecies fertility (polar bears and brown bears)
Micro.[/quote]
Again, evidence of evolution, full stop.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
On the previous page, all the things I mentioned as flaws in the human body if it were designed are evidence for evolution.
A very subjective argument. I understand the point one is trying to make but it doesn’t hold up as “evidence” under careful examination.[/quote]
It�¢??s not at all subjective; the female pelvis is too narrow for baby�¢??s heads. That�¢??s fact, stone cold, and only makes sense in the light of evolution; surely a perfect designer could have at least got that one right?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Creationism has some very plausible answers of its own in this regard. Look it up if you are seriously interested. I doubt you are but nonetheless, I urge you to do so. I simply am not a fast enough typist to warrant going into detail on this.[/quote]
I have read a lot about creationism; I’ve never yet seen any of these plausible answers. IÃ?¢??ve never seen anything approaching a theory with predictive or explanatory powers. You are clearly more knowledgeable, please show me at least one of these answers, and win the Nobel prize while you’re at it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
True science has helped us with medicines, psychology, farming, physiotherapy and many other things besides.
Fixed that for ya.[/quote]
I see no problem with that. What you must realise is that all of those are grounded in evolution.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The sheer explanatory power of evolution is mind boggling to perfectly frank. It’s scope dwarves petty notions of god. It’s majesty is awe inspiring.
Your faith and zealotry just reared its ugly head.
And yet, I would absolutely LOVE it if someone could disprove the theory. [/quote]
You probably should have chosen a better place to call be a zealot.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I honestly think you would feel quite the opposite. After reading your espousal of satanism on the other thread I understand your fervor on this one. It makes sense.[/quote]
You can honestly think that all you like, you’d still be wrong. IÃ?¢??m not sentimental about evolution; if someone came up with a superior theory it would be one of the greatest things to happen in history and lead to all manner of advancements which could better human life.
As for Satanism; if I were forced to choose a religion, that would be it, but IÃ?¢??d rather have no religion. However you clearly donÃ?¢??t know much about Satanism if you relate zealotry to it. Satanists would be among the loudest champions of a superior theory to evolution, because anything which could potentially improve their lives they’d support, and additionally, any such superlative achievement they would support too.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
…Again, please, any evidence you have for creationism greatly appreciated by the world. Even something as elegant simple and clear as human chromosome no. 2 would suffice.
If you are serious, Jab, and I really don’t think you are…I mean after all what satanist is really interested in the case for a creator? Anyway, read the book, “A Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel.
[/quote]
You’re right about Satanists here.
The trouble with that book is that Strobel is a Christian; bias disclosed. Something a lot of creationists never mention (which is bizarre considering how much they go on about him) is that Darwin was a creationist. This is part of the reason it took him so long to publish his theories, because he was involved in a massive internal struggle with his own beliefs.
I’ll check this book out, but will remind you that you are still yet to provide any evidence whatsoever for creationism.
Push, let me repeat this quote by Pope Benedict, leader of the largest Christian organization on the planet.
“While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.”
I am going to assume that you disagree with this statement, but what ramifications does this statement have for Christianity? Do you believe that the Catholics are damned for believing this? Again, I ask: why does Christian salvation hinge upon a literal belief in Genesis?
It appears there is some “controversy” amongst creationists about common descent.
EDIT: Anyway push, stop dodging this; show me some evidence that has not been debunked or refuted and win the Nobel prize! This would probably have to be original research on your part because all creationist ideas thus have been thoroughly taken apart by science. Just thinking about “irreducible complexity” for example, makes me chortle heartily.
I really don’t care for pentagrams to be perfectly frank, but they are at least a little more palatable than the cross and everything it stands for.
It wasn’t me by the way, you asked me (in this very thread) whether I do or not and I said that I do, and if I hadn’t then it was an error. I capitalise it in the same way I capitalise the Satanic Bible
First, Pope Benedict is a man and nothing more than a fallible man just like the rest of us. He is not a quasi-divine being with a direct line to God that others in this world don’t have.[/quote]
Implying that because Moses did have a direct line to God (at least so he claimed), his opinions (based on the common knowledge of his time) are more valid than those of the Pope, whose opinions are also based on the common knowledge of his time.[quote]
Second, I do disagree with his statement.
[/quote]And yet I scroll up a bit and see that you say that “creationists do believe in common descent.” Common descent of what from what?
Well, then, what’s the big deal?
No, really, I’m curious. What motivates you to defend your literal belief in Genesis against those who don’t have the same belief, fifteen pages after you said you weren’t going to get sucked into another discussion of it, if there are no real theological consequences one way or the other.
I assume you realize that the decision of Ephrem and Jab and Orion whether or not to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and saviour will not in any way be affected by your defense of creationism, nor probably will the glory of your own hereafter in any way be enhanced by the zeal of your arguments.
Is it because, like me, you enjoy debating, even after it becomes clear that the two sides debating are utterly irreconcilable?
(I’m still keeping my promise to read the Genesis Record, by the way.)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
I really don’t care for pentagrams to be perfectly frank, but they are at least a little more palatable than the cross and everything it stands for.
It wasn’t me by the way, you asked me (in this very thread) whether I do or not and I said that I do, and if I hadn’t then it was an error. I capitalise it in the same way I capitalise the Satanic Bible
I stand corrected, sir.
In what way is the pentagram more palatable than the cross? (Cue Black Sabbath)
[/quote]
The cross to me symbolises torture, slavery and ignorance. The pentagram has no meaning to me and symbolises nothing to me. These are just my own personal feelings on them.
The pentagram symbolizes the five classical elements of Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Ether, and the five human senses. Medieval Christians used the pentagram to represent the five wounds inflicted by Christ on the cross (hands, feet, and side), also the five joys of the Virgin Mary (the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the Assumption), and the five virtues of knighthood: generosity, fellowship, purity, courtesy, and compassion.
So, compared to a symbolic representation of a crude device used by ancient civilizations for executing criminals and political prisoners, I’d say the pentagram is probably the more palatable symbol.
