Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Interview with a Christian

Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 4:12:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Q: So you believe god "hand crafts" every single one of us correct?
A: That is correct

Q: So then does he hand craft retards to be retarded and cripples to be crippled?
A: God has a plan for everybody, even the retards and cripples.

Q: So what about the babies who die at birth or before birth?
A: That was God's plan.

Am I the only one who finds this stupid?
dobby
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 4:21:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
interview with an atheist.

q. why dont you believe in God?
a. because i see no hard proof!!!!

q. do you see any hard proof in evolution?
a. no but that is science so it is all good!!!!

q. how can you demand hard proof for god but accept theories of evolution with only minimal evidence?
a. ITS SCIENECE DAMN IT!!!!

am i the only one that sees how stupid this is?
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 4:42:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 4:21:29 PM, dobby wrote:
interview with an atheist.

q. why dont you believe in God?
a. because i see no hard proof!!!!

q. do you see any hard proof in evolution?
a. no but that is science so it is all good!!!!

q. how can you demand hard proof for god but accept theories of evolution with only minimal evidence?
a. ITS SCIENECE DAMN IT!!!!

am i the only one that sees how stupid this is?

Wait, are you saying that there's only minimal evidence for evolution, or that most atheists only require minimal evidence for it? Because if it's the former, I don't think many atheists would say that there's "only minimal evidence" for it.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 4:47:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 4:12:39 PM, Rockylightning wrote:

Q: So then does he hand craft retards to be retarded and cripples to be crippled?
A: God has a plan for everybody, even the retards and cripples.

Who were you talking with?
kfc
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 4:56:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Q: Do you believe that God is the creator of all life?

A: Yes, consciousness can only be created by consciousness. Life can only be created by life. Logic supports this.

Q: Is evolution or creationism the way of life?

A: Both. God created conscious life from himself, aka "the soul". This life animates matter called a physical body. The physical body changes in adaptation to the physical environment around it, this ensures that life will always have physical bodies to animate in order to gain a higher vibration of existence. The scale that we go through in spirit life is similar to going through the music scale. It starts off low and dense (matter) and then rises in vibration (consciousness) until it reaches a new pitch or density. This is the reason why we cannot see or hear spirits most of the time with our normal human instruments (eyes, ears, etc.) the vibration (pitch) is too high for us to register it.

Can you hear a dog whistle? Doubt it. Can you hear a spirit talk? Doubt it.

That does not mean that neither exists, just that you don't have the right instruments to experience it.

All of this makes logical sense when you open your mind to it. It's not based on religious dogma, nor does it refute science. It's just the most logical way for me to make sense out of currently unknowable subjects.

Q: Is there life after death?

A: Yes, the spirit/soul is eternal. Death is only something that exists on the physical density. Death of matter. Spirit animates matter, uses it like a tool, therefor spirit does not die when it's tool breaks (dies)... It just decides to do something else for awhile or it finds another tool to use.

Conclusion: Neither science nor religion is completely wrong, both are just narrow minded at this time in human history. The two will come together towards one truth some day in the future of the human race. Either that, or the human race will destroy itself.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 5:53:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 4:21:29 PM, dobby wrote:
interview with an atheist.

q. why dont you believe in God?
a. because i see no hard proof!!!!

q. do you see any hard proof in evolution?
a. no but that is science so it is all good!!!!

q. how can you demand hard proof for god but accept theories of evolution with only minimal evidence?
a. ITS SCIENECE DAMN IT!!!!

am i the only one that sees how stupid this is?

yes, but for different reasons then you do.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 6:13:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 4:21:29 PM, dobby wrote:
interview with an atheist.

q. why dont you believe in God?
a. because i see no hard proof!!!!

q. do you see any hard proof in evolution?
a. no but that is science so it is all good!!!!

q. how can you demand hard proof for god but accept theories of evolution with only minimal evidence?
a. ITS SCIENECE DAMN IT!!!!

am i the only one that sees how stupid this is?

Minimal evidence? Epic fail.

1. Fossil Record
2. Vestigial structures
3. Human DNA Is 98% similar to Ape DNA.
4. Punctuated equilibrium.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 6:15:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 6:13:53 PM, Rockylightning wrote:

3. Human DNA Is 98% similar to Ape DNA.

We also share most of our common DNA with bananas.
kfc
dobby
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 7:14:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 6:13:53 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 6/21/2011 4:21:29 PM, dobby wrote:
interview with an atheist.

q. why dont you believe in God?
a. because i see no hard proof!!!!

q. do you see any hard proof in evolution?
a. no but that is science so it is all good!!!!

q. how can you demand hard proof for god but accept theories of evolution with only minimal evidence?
a. ITS SCIENECE DAMN IT!!!!

am i the only one that sees how stupid this is?

Minimal evidence? Epic fail.

1. Fossil Record
2. Vestigial structures
3. Human DNA Is 98% similar to Ape DNA.
4. Punctuated equilibrium.

fossil records show that other animals have lived in the past. it doesn't do jack squat to show that one evolved into another. so what that human dna is similar to an ape. we have over half dna similar to bananas. does that mean that even further back in time we came from bananas? is that proof of evolution? no. its not anything of the sort.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 10:33:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 7:14:29 PM, dobby wrote:
At 6/21/2011 6:13:53 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 6/21/2011 4:21:29 PM, dobby wrote:
interview with an atheist.

q. why dont you believe in God?
a. because i see no hard proof!!!!

q. do you see any hard proof in evolution?
a. no but that is science so it is all good!!!!

q. how can you demand hard proof for god but accept theories of evolution with only minimal evidence?
a. ITS SCIENECE DAMN IT!!!!

am i the only one that sees how stupid this is?

Minimal evidence? Epic fail.

1. Fossil Record
2. Vestigial structures
3. Human DNA Is 98% similar to Ape DNA.
4. Punctuated equilibrium.

fossil records show that other animals have lived in the past. it doesn't do jack squat to show that one evolved into another. so what that human dna is similar to an ape. we have over half dna similar to bananas. does that mean that even further back in time we came from bananas? is that proof of evolution? no. its not anything of the sort.

Fossil records portray the slow changes of a species over time. As the layers get older, the organisms get simpler.

Bannanas arent organisms first of all. Second of all yes we are technically related to bannanas and all plants for that matter.

This whole argument about evolution is a red herring though. What about god's plans?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 11:24:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 7:14:29 PM, dobby wrote:
At 6/21/2011 6:13:53 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 6/21/2011 4:21:29 PM, dobby wrote:
interview with an atheist.

q. why dont you believe in God?
a. because i see no hard proof!!!!

q. do you see any hard proof in evolution?
a. no but that is science so it is all good!!!!

q. how can you demand hard proof for god but accept theories of evolution with only minimal evidence?
a. ITS SCIENECE DAMN IT!!!!

am i the only one that sees how stupid this is?

Minimal evidence? Epic fail.

1. Fossil Record
2. Vestigial structures
3. Human DNA Is 98% similar to Ape DNA.
4. Punctuated equilibrium.

fossil records show that other animals have lived in the past. it doesn't do jack squat to show that one evolved into another. so what that human dna is similar to an ape. we have over half dna similar to bananas. does that mean that even further back in time we came from bananas? is that proof of evolution? no. its not anything of the sort.

Apply this argument to human remains. Remains that look human, show that another animal that looks a lot like a human, had lived in the past. And by your reasoning, it doesnt do jack squat to show that these remains belong to a human, are related to humans, and shared a common ancestor with other humans.

The argument is stupid, when you consider it in that light. Your argument fails.

And yes, even further back in time, we shared a common ancestor with bananas. This is evidence of nothing, i agree. The evidence exists in the neanderthals and Australopithecus, not in bananas.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2011 11:27:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 4:21:29 PM, dobby wrote:
interview with an atheist.

q. why dont you believe in God?
a. because i see no evidence. The same reason why i dont believe in Unicorns or Faeries.

q. do you see any hard proof in evolution?
a. There is no such thing as "Hard proof" in science, but yes, i see much evidence that supports evolution.

q. how can you demand hard proof for god but accept theories of evolution with only minimal evidence?
a. Because the evidence isnt minimal. We have an amazing variety of evidence, even to the point that many christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc etc all believe and accept evolution.

am i the only one that sees how stupid I am?

Fix'd.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 12:28:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 11:27:05 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/21/2011 4:21:29 PM, dobby wrote:
interview with an atheist that I like to imagine represents an atheist.

q. why dont you believe in God?
a. because i see no evidence. The same reason why i dont believe in Unicorns or Faeries.

q. do you see any hard proof in evolution?
a. There is no such thing as "Hard proof" in science, but yes, i see much evidence that supports evolution.

q. how can you demand hard proof for god but accept theories of evolution with only minimal evidence?
a. Because the evidence isnt minimal. We have an amazing variety of evidence, even to the point that many christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc etc all believe and accept evolution.

am i the only one that sees how stupid I am?

Fix'd.

Double fixd
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 6:38:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Interview/conversation with a Thaddeus
T = Thaddeus
I = Interviewer

I - So lets talk about *blah blah blah* (I stopped listening at that point)
T - Nah. Thats boring. Lets pretend we are wizard space pirates fighting a bantersaurus rex.

And then we did.
The end
dobby
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:45:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 10:33:37 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 6/21/2011 7:14:29 PM, dobby wrote:
At 6/21/2011 6:13:53 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 6/21/2011 4:21:29 PM, dobby wrote:
interview with an atheist.

q. why dont you believe in God?
a. because i see no hard proof!!!!

q. do you see any hard proof in evolution?
a. no but that is science so it is all good!!!!

q. how can you demand hard proof for god but accept theories of evolution with only minimal evidence?
a. ITS SCIENECE DAMN IT!!!!

am i the only one that sees how stupid this is?

Minimal evidence? Epic fail.

1. Fossil Record
2. Vestigial structures
3. Human DNA Is 98% similar to Ape DNA.
4. Punctuated equilibrium.

fossil records show that other animals have lived in the past. it doesn't do jack squat to show that one evolved into another. so what that human dna is similar to an ape. we have over half dna similar to bananas. does that mean that even further back in time we came from bananas? is that proof of evolution? no. its not anything of the sort.

Fossil records portray the slow changes of a species over time. As the layers get older, the organisms get simpler.

Bannanas arent organisms first of all. Second of all yes we are technically related to bannanas and all plants for that matter.

This whole argument about evolution is a red herring though. What about god's plans?

they dont show any changes. they show differences. there is no evidence that one became the other. that is a conclusion that youre jumping to. they show three different things which may seem similar but there is absolutely nothing that shows that one became the other. and no the whole thing is not a silly red herring. the thread opened with a bogus probably fake conversation and im just pointing out the hypocracy of it all.
Brainmaster
Posts: 1,603
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:46:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 4:12:39 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
Q: So you believe god "hand crafts" every single one of us correct?
A: That is correct

Q: So then does he hand craft retards to be retarded and cripples to be crippled?
A: God has a plan for everybody, even the retards and cripples.

Q: So what about the babies who die at birth or before birth?
A: That was God's plan.



Am I the only one who finds this stupid?

Makes perfect sense. I don't actually see anything wrong with it. You just haven't been granted the gift of intelligence by God.
Kfc.
interrogator
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:48:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Brainmaster my child. You have the gift of intelligence, but you do not
take it seriously. Neither yourself. It is good to be humorous in life about
certain issues. But it is ok to be serious when it counts. <--------
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:56:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:45:08 AM, dobby wrote:
they dont show any changes. they show differences.

.....

Did you just...

WTF?

there is no evidence that one became the other.

Let me get this straight, you think that the theory of evolution and common descent involve an organism changing into another type of organism within it's life span? Is this what you are advocating?

that is a conclusion that youre jumping to. they show three different things which may seem similar but there is absolutely nothing that shows that one became the other. and no the whole thing is not a silly red herring. the thread opened with a bogus probably fake conversation and im just pointing out the hypocracy of it all.

That's not the only thing you are pointing out...
dobby
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 11:04:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:56:45 AM, Meatros wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:45:08 AM, dobby wrote:
they dont show any changes. they show differences.

.....

Did you just...

WTF?

there is no evidence that one became the other.

Let me get this straight, you think that the theory of evolution and common descent involve an organism changing into another type of organism within it's life span? Is this what you are advocating?

that is a conclusion that youre jumping to. they show three different things which may seem similar but there is absolutely nothing that shows that one became the other. and no the whole thing is not a silly red herring. the thread opened with a bogus probably fake conversation and im just pointing out the hypocracy of it all.

That's not the only thing you are pointing out...

cant you read? changes mean that you have one thing that changes to another. differences mean you have two different things. evolution says that one thing became another. but there is no evidence of that. there is evidence that two things were similar but nothing that says that one came from the other. im similar to my brother but we didn't come from each other.
of course thats not what im advocating. evolution says that one thing becomes another over time. but there is no evidence that they actually change. there is only evidence that you have two similar things at two different times in history. thats it nothing more.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 11:16:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 11:04:08 AM, dobby wrote:

cant you read?

No, clearly not, which is why it's so bizarre that I'm able to respond to you. I wonder if it's just random chance that the keys I'm striking are forming coherent sentences...

changes mean that you have one thing that changes to another. differences mean you have two different things.

So wouldn't that thing that changed into another thing be different from it's prior state?

Or do all differences merely require more then one agent? So I can change my mind on something, but if a group of people change their mind, they've actually 'differented' there mind? ;-)

evolution says that one thing became another.

No, it doesn't, maybe 'creationist' evolution, but not the evolution that is studied by biologists. What that 'evolution' says is that groups of a species had progeny that had differences in their DNA then the original group. This new group had progeny that had differences in their DNA then their parents, and so on and so forth.

but there is no evidence of that. there is evidence that two things were similar but nothing that says that one came from the other. im similar to my brother but we didn't come from each other.

You know this argument (a la Kent Hovind) implies that if you find a human skeleton you cannot prove it had parents.

of course thats not what im advocating. evolution says that one thing becomes another over time.

Evolution doesn't really work on the individual level, as you are suggesting.

but there is no evidence that they actually change. there is only evidence that you have two similar things at two different times in history. thats it nothing more.

And with this you've ruled out most of science, wittingly or unwittingly. Congrats.
dobby
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 12:49:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
we know that the human skeleton had parents because we see that every human has parents. we haven't witnessed evolution so we have nothing to compare it to. just a mindless theory that people accept.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 1:14:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 12:49:13 PM, dobby wrote:
we know that the human skeleton had parents because we see that every human has parents.

...

You admit this, yet you still persist. Odd.

we haven't witnessed evolution so we have nothing to compare it to.

I don't know about you, but people have witnessed it.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

just a mindless theory that people accept.

Hm...Yes, that's it. 10's of 1,000's of scientists are just mindlessly studying the subject.

My guess, and it could be wrong, since I'm apparently illiterate, is that you don't know a lot about biology and you are just mindlessly accepting what your church has taught you.
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 1:25:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/21/2011 4:21:29 PM, dobby wrote:
interview with an atheist.

q. why dont you believe in God?

a. No evidence, numeroud moral and logical contradictions in every religion.


q. do you see any hard proof in evolution?

a. I personally do though believe in evolution is not necessary for disbelief in God.

q. how can you demand hard proof for god but accept theories of evolution with only minimal evidence?

a. Evolution has been proven. There is no double standard.

Figured I'd give a real interview with an atheist.
My manwich!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 1:52:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 11:04:08 AM, dobby wrote:
cant you read? changes mean that you have one thing that changes to another. differences mean you have two different things.

If i have a seedling and a tree, the seedling clearly can change into a tree, but the seedling and the tree are still different. Put them side by side, and you have two different things. Your argument fails.

evolution says that one thing became another. but there is no evidence of that. there is evidence that two things were similar but nothing that says that one came from the other. im similar to my brother but we didn't come from each other.

No one is saying that anything CAME FROM another thing. What we are saying, is that things share a COMMON ANCESTOR. Your brother are similar, because you share a COMMON ANCESTOR, i.e. your parents. Humans and chimpanzees are similar, because we share a COMMON ANCESTOR, not because Humans CAME from apes.

of course thats not what im advocating. evolution says that one thing becomes another over time. but there is no evidence that they actually change. there is only evidence that you have two similar things at two different times in history. thats it nothing more.

If you see a small plant in the ground, then leave for 100 years, come back, and see a huge tree in its place, the only "Evidence" you have are the similarities between the plant and the tree(Similar leaves, same species of plant, etc), however, you have nothing that suggests that the plant you saw before, and the tree you see now before you, are the same.

So, I ask you, is it a "Jump", or a leap of faith, to consider that the plant grew into a large tree in the span of 100 years?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 1:55:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 1:25:52 PM, Merda wrote:
At 6/21/2011 4:21:29 PM, dobby wrote:
interview with an atheist.

q. why dont you believe in God?

a. No evidence, numeroud moral and logical contradictions in every religion.

Wow. These are terrible reasons.

1. Yes, there is evidence for Gods existence. The problem is, the evidence isn't always convincing or sufficient.

2. You committed a major non-sequitur: "There's moral and logical contradictions in every religion, therefore I don't believe God exists." That is absurd. Every single religion could be 100% false and it would have no bearing whatsoever on whether God exists or not. Proof of this fact is the very notion of Deism.

3. Not every religion even believes in God, so how can you say a non-theistic religion's falsehood is a testement to Gods nonexistence? The falsehood of an atheistic religion would be completely irrelevant to Gods existence.

4. You claim there's numerous moral and logical contradictions in EVERY religion. If that's the case, please demonstrate how Buddhism has moral and logical contradictions.

Figured I'd give a real interview with an atheist.

Well, it was pretty bad, almost as bad as the parody of an Atheist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 1:58:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 1:25:52 PM, Merda wrote:

a. No evidence, numeroud moral and logical contradictions in every religion.


Uh, what? Aren't you a moral nihilist?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dobby
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 2:03:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 1:52:35 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 6/22/2011 11:04:08 AM, dobby wrote:
cant you read? changes mean that you have one thing that changes to another. differences mean you have two different things.

If i have a seedling and a tree, the seedling clearly can change into a tree, but the seedling and the tree are still different. Put them side by side, and you have two different things. Your argument fails.

evolution says that one thing became another. but there is no evidence of that. there is evidence that two things were similar but nothing that says that one came from the other. im similar to my brother but we didn't come from each other.

No one is saying that anything CAME FROM another thing. What we are saying, is that things share a COMMON ANCESTOR. Your brother are similar, because you share a COMMON ANCESTOR, i.e. your parents. Humans and chimpanzees are similar, because we share a COMMON ANCESTOR, not because Humans CAME from apes.


of course thats not what im advocating. evolution says that one thing becomes another over time. but there is no evidence that they actually change. there is only evidence that you have two similar things at two different times in history. thats it nothing more.

If you see a small plant in the ground, then leave for 100 years, come back, and see a huge tree in its place, the only "Evidence" you have are the similarities between the plant and the tree(Similar leaves, same species of plant, etc), however, you have nothing that suggests that the plant you saw before, and the tree you see now before you, are the same.

So, I ask you, is it a "Jump", or a leap of faith, to consider that the plant grew into a large tree in the span of 100 years?

saying we have a common ancestor is saying we came from that ancestor. things can be similar without having a common ancestor. for the tree it would be a jump to say that you know that big tree came from that little plant. you are free to believe that it did but it is also possible that the big tree before you is a completely different tree. so you have no proof to support your belief only circumstancial evidence.
would it be a leap of faith for me to believe that the big tree was instead planted by some wise farmer? even though i never saw a farmer plant it?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 2:20:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 2:03:23 PM, dobby wrote:
saying we have a common ancestor is saying we came from that ancestor.
Yes. You and your brother share a common ancestor, but neither you or your brother, are your ancestor. So you didnt come from your brother, and vice versa.

things can be similar without having a common ancestor.

Give me one example of something that wasnt based off, or came from a common ancestor, that exist today, to which you can prove that they did not have a common ancestor.

for the tree it would be a jump to say that you know that big tree came from that little plant. you are free to believe that it did but it is also possible that the big tree before you is a completely different tree. so you have no proof to support your belief only circumstancial evidence.

So when a dendrologist(Someone who studies trees), comes on a saturday night, makes a report about a tree she sees in a clearing, goes home, and then comes back the following week, and once every week after that, to check up on the tree, it would be a big jump for that scientist to claim that he had been observing the same tree over the past few months?

would it be a leap of faith for me to believe that the big tree was instead planted by some wise farmer? even though i never saw a farmer plant it?

It would be a leap of faith, especially without any evidence.

Its like saying "Is it leap of faith for me to believe that an alien race, 10,000 years ago, planted the diamonds deep into the ground for us to find?" Yes, i would say that is a leap of faith, indeed.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 2:22:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Dobby, do you believe that you are a 100% copy of your mother or father?
If not, do you believe that your genetic code is pure (that is, specific chromosomes are either of your father's line or your mother's line)?
That your DNA possess no mutations or 'copying errors'?
If you believe that some of your DNA has probably been copied wrong, do you believe that those instructions could possibly be either neutral or beneficial? If not, why not?
If a group of humans and yourself were put on an island and effectively isolated from the rest of humanity, and forced to procreate, do you believe that your progeny would have slightly different DNA then you?
If this process of procreation were repeated with your children and their children, for thousands of generations, do you believe that at generation 1,000,000 that child would look like you? If you do, please explain why, since this hypothetical child would have accumulated billions of genetic differences by this point.

This hypothetical child, btw, would have different mutations (via randomness) then the rest of humanity, since those mutations would not have been allowed to filter into the rest of humanity (hence the isolation in this experiment).

So this hypothetical child, which does not look like you, nor look like the rest of humanity, is it a new species? If not, why not?