Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Conversations

bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 11:37:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are people here and everywhere who argue over what people meant in a conversation that allegedly took place between 2000 and 6000yrs ago. Nobody, I mean NOBODY ever recorded these conversations, if they ever took place in the first place.
But you people go on for decades about what "this" fictional person meant by "this" fictional word during "this" fictional conversation.
Can you not see how utterly insane that is?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 3:41:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, for it's very important , your way to eternal life is to understand God's message. you can call it fictional if that's your conclusion, but interpreting it it isn't insane.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 3:48:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 3:41:43 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Well, for it's very important , your way to eternal life is to understand God's message.

How do you know that?
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 4:31:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I already happen to know we're created , which you don't seem to know so we don't start from the same platform. then I do know the way to know the Creator can only be through revelation, for He isn't matter nor energy, He is spirit.

Now there are these guys who received revelation, and people saw the miracles and received their revelation, those revelations confirm one another, and call to the same thing: Worship none but the creator, and follow the commands, and the reward is eternal life.

Which makes a sense with a universe creator.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 4:33:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 4:31:00 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
I already happen to know we're created ,

How?

then I do know the way to know the Creator can only be through revelation, for He isn't matter nor energy, He is spirit.

Okay, so revelation is how you know the creator after you know we're created...how do you know we're created?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 4:53:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 4:33:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:31:00 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
I already happen to know we're created ,

How?


then I do know the way to know the Creator can only be through revelation, for He isn't matter nor energy, He is spirit.

Okay, so revelation is how you know the creator after you know we're created...how do you know we're created?

Because , we either are created, or we are ? evolved from one cell hehe well the question is , why did the cell even evolve in the first place if evolution occurs for necessity, and this opinion is still really very unlikelySo as the series of accidents doesn't inspire me at all as I told you before in another topic, although there is no evidence this even is possible, some people still prefer this view.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 5:02:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 4:53:54 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:33:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:31:00 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
I already happen to know we're created ,

How?


then I do know the way to know the Creator can only be through revelation, for He isn't matter nor energy, He is spirit.

Okay, so revelation is how you know the creator after you know we're created...how do you know we're created?

Because , we either are created, or we are ? evolved from one cell hehe well the question is , why did the cell even evolve in the first place if evolution occurs for necessity, and this opinion is still really very unlikely. So as the series of accidents doesn't inspire me at all as I told you before in another topic, although there is no evidence this even is possible, some people still prefer this view.

1) Evolution does happen out of necessity, as it is at its most basic form "Good things tend to do better than worse things." with trimmings.

2) Your claim is based off of "evolution is false" in this statement. Which is not helpful.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 5:47:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 5:02:05 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:53:54 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:33:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:31:00 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
I already happen to know we're created ,

How?


then I do know the way to know the Creator can only be through revelation, for He isn't matter nor energy, He is spirit.

Okay, so revelation is how you know the creator after you know we're created...how do you know we're created?

Because , we either are created, or we are ? evolved from one cell hehe well the question is , why did the cell even evolve in the first place if evolution occurs for necessity, and this opinion is still really very unlikely. So as the series of accidents doesn't inspire me at all as I told you before in another topic, although there is no evidence this even is possible, some people still prefer this view.

1) Evolution does happen out of necessity, as it is at its most basic form "Good things tend to do better than worse things." with trimmings.I accept this, why would a happy cell, that has everything she needs to live plainly even "need" to evolve ? and what is the mechanism, that (if there really is a necessity) that would help her to mutate (even small mutations), who decides for the change ? I guess it isn't the cell itself, then does her DNA allow this change?!Is this change planned in the DNA or how is it triggered? just by necessity? usually necessity would mean, if you don't operate the change you will die(sooner than you should), now animals do die from sicknesses and it is really necessary that we evolve (better than viruses that is) but I never heard that evolution helped to get rid of any sickness, I would name flue which is enough common, or cancer. Well those are some questions that evolution suggests.:
2) Your claim is based off of "evolution is false" in this statement. Which is not helpful.

No I don't refute evolution altogether, I refute the Common Descent theory specifically. actually even in religions we know we did evolve in size and coloursAnd we can see viruses evolve from a year to the next, I just don't expect that they would rule us one day.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 6:38:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 5:47:41 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/25/2013 5:02:05 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:53:54 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:33:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:31:00 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
I already happen to know we're created ,

How?


then I do know the way to know the Creator can only be through revelation, for He isn't matter nor energy, He is spirit.

Okay, so revelation is how you know the creator after you know we're created...how do you know we're created?

Because , we either are created, or we are ? evolved from one cell hehe well the question is , why did the cell even evolve in the first place if evolution occurs for necessity, and this opinion is still really very unlikely. So as the series of accidents doesn't inspire me at all as I told you before in another topic, although there is no evidence this even is possible, some people still prefer this view.

1) Evolution does happen out of necessity, as it is at its most basic form "Good things tend to do better than worse things." with trimmings.I accept this, why would a happy cell, that has everything she needs to live plainly even "need" to evolve ? and what is the mechanism, that (if there really is a necessity) that would help her to mutate (even small mutations), who decides for the change ? I guess it isn't the cell itself, then does her DNA allow this change?!Is this change planned in the DNA or how is it triggered? just by necessity? usually necessity would mean, if you don't operate the change you will die(sooner than you should), now animals do die from sicknesses and it is really necessary that we evolve (better than viruses that is) but I never heard that evolution helped to get rid of any sickness, I would name flue which is enough common, or cancer. Well those are some questions that evolution suggests.:
2) Your claim is based off of "evolution is false" in this statement. Which is not helpful.

No I don't refute evolution altogether, I refute the Common Descent theory specifically. actually even in religions we know we did evolve in size and coloursAnd we can see viruses evolve from a year to the next, I just don't expect that they would rule us one day.

What makes you think evolution would predict that? Evolution is just that things change over time. Common descent is just the idea that it seems everything is related, and there is no evidence that would lead us to believe the descent wasn't common. It might still be falsified; it is also plausible that life sprang up in similar fashion in multiple places, but in the same simple structure. It would be almost impossible to prove that that occurred, and I question whether they would even be considered distinct ancestors, but it's possible.

Meanwhile, in the absence of any evidence for creation (which you have never provided), in the absence of any evidence for the plausibility of a creator (which you have never provided), trying to claim that a creator is more likely than a series of chance events, each one of which we KNOW to be plausible, is absurd.

Give me any reason to think that God is plausible, other than your claim that you think the alternative is implausible. As is so often pointed out to theists, merely attacking a competing theory does not establish the validity of your own theory.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2013 8:39:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 6:38:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 5:47:41 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/25/2013 5:02:05 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:53:54 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:33:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:31:00 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
I already happen to know we're created ,

How?


then I do know the way to know the Creator can only be through revelation, for He isn't matter nor energy, He is spirit.

Okay, so revelation is how you know the creator after you know we're created...how do you know we're created?

Because , we either are created, or we are ? evolved from one cell hehe well the question is , why did the cell even evolve in the first place if evolution occurs for necessity, and this opinion is still really very unlikely. So as the series of accidents doesn't inspire me at all as I told you before in another topic, although there is no evidence this even is possible, some people still prefer this view.

1) Evolution does happen out of necessity, as it is at its most basic form "Good things tend to do better than worse things." with trimmings.I accept this, why would a happy cell, that has everything she needs to live plainly even "need" to evolve ? and what is the mechanism, that (if there really is a necessity) that would help her to mutate (even small mutations), who decides for the change ? I guess it isn't the cell itself, then does her DNA allow this change?!Is this change planned in the DNA or how is it triggered? just by necessity? usually necessity would mean, if you don't operate the change you will die(sooner than you should), now animals do die from sicknesses and it is really necessary that we evolve (better than viruses that is) but I never heard that evolution helped to get rid of any sickness, I would name flue which is enough common, or cancer. Well those are some questions that evolution suggests.:
2) Your claim is based off of "evolution is false" in this statement. Which is not helpful.

No I don't refute evolution altogether, I refute the Common Descent theory specifically. actually even in religions we know we did evolve in size and coloursAnd we can see viruses evolve from a year to the next, I just don't expect that they would rule us one day.

What makes you think evolution would predict that?

I actually was kidding about viruses but they just seem smarter when it comes to evolution!

Evolution is just that things change over time. Common descent is just the idea that it seems everything is related,

So creation isn't also an idea that everything is related ?!
and there is no evidence that would lead us to believe the descent wasn't common.

What?! We need the evidence for the claim itself, this isn't something we witnessed , this is a theory to oppose creation and explain kinds with the supposition that there is no creator, and it leads nowhere, it doesn't have an evidence, and the hints that lead to it equally lead to a common creator!

It might still be falsified; it is also plausible that life sprang up in similar fashion in multiple places, but in the same simple structure. It would be almost impossible to prove that that occurred, and I question whether they would even be considered distinct ancestors, but it's possible.

Not more plausible than a creator though!:
Meanwhile, in the absence of any evidence for creation (which you have never provided), in the absence of any evidence for the plausibility of a creator (which you have never provided), trying to claim that a creator is more likely than a series of chance events, each one of which we KNOW to be plausible, is absurd.

Nothing is plausible more than a creator is! how do you say it is plausible provide evidence , and I mean evidence that it is more plausible than a creator, and that for diversity of kinds alone.:
Give me any reason to think that God is plausible, other than your claim that you think the alternative is implausible. As is so often pointed out to theists, merely attacking a competing theory does not establish the validity of your own theory.

there are a lot of reasons if you want to reason, it is plausible by definition that anything is created, the alternative is a week explanation and is very flawed. all it has to support it are hints that can equally point to a creator, and it hides enormous questions that threaten it's validity.

Now that you worship evolution, this same evolution need to be something written in the DNA of the species , that allows them to evolve to a certain extent, and not beyond, as scientists claim this option is triggered by necessity, and necessity means , if the organism doesn't change, then the species will perish. what in the world could be the necessity that triggered the evolution of the first cell ?! and what is this "program" that limits the changes? in what way are animals better than unicells, are you seeing how it seems to be something planned even if you accept CD ?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 12:38:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/25/2013 8:39:01 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/25/2013 6:38:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 5:47:41 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/25/2013 5:02:05 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:53:54 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:33:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/25/2013 4:31:00 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
I already happen to know we're created ,

How?


then I do know the way to know the Creator can only be through revelation, for He isn't matter nor energy, He is spirit.

Okay, so revelation is how you know the creator after you know we're created...how do you know we're created?

Because , we either are created, or we are ? evolved from one cell hehe well the question is , why did the cell even evolve in the first place if evolution occurs for necessity, and this opinion is still really very unlikely. So as the series of accidents doesn't inspire me at all as I told you before in another topic, although there is no evidence this even is possible, some people still prefer this view.

1) Evolution does happen out of necessity, as it is at its most basic form "Good things tend to do better than worse things." with trimmings.I accept this, why would a happy cell, that has everything she needs to live plainly even "need" to evolve ? and what is the mechanism, that (if there really is a necessity) that would help her to mutate (even small mutations), who decides for the change ? I guess it isn't the cell itself, then does her DNA allow this change?!Is this change planned in the DNA or how is it triggered? just by necessity? usually necessity would mean, if you don't operate the change you will die(sooner than you should), now animals do die from sicknesses and it is really necessary that we evolve (better than viruses that is) but I never heard that evolution helped to get rid of any sickness, I would name flue which is enough common, or cancer. Well those are some questions that evolution suggests.:
2) Your claim is based off of "evolution is false" in this statement. Which is not helpful.

No I don't refute evolution altogether, I refute the Common Descent theory specifically. actually even in religions we know we did evolve in size and coloursAnd we can see viruses evolve from a year to the next, I just don't expect that they would rule us one day.

What makes you think evolution would predict that?

I actually was kidding about viruses but they just seem smarter when it comes to evolution!

It can be hard to tell, sometimes.


Evolution is just that things change over time. Common descent is just the idea that it seems everything is related,

So creation isn't also an idea that everything is related ?!

UCD is a hypothesis which gives an explanation for the genetic similarities we see. If god created each species individually, there would be no reason for those genetic similarities. That's a vast oversimplification, however, I can provide more of the reasoning behind UCD on request. Creationism has no such explanatory power.

and there is no evidence that would lead us to believe the descent wasn't common.

What?! We need the evidence for the claim itself, this isn't something we witnessed , this is a theory to oppose creation and explain kinds with the supposition that there is no creator, and it leads nowhere, it doesn't have an evidence, and the hints that lead to it equally lead to a common creator!

Well, that's first hypocritical of you. You accept a creator despite no evidence, but reject a lack of a creator because of no evidence? That's a contradiction. However, in general, we look for evidence FOR and a lack of evidence AGAINST. That is what I was indicating: We have evidence FOR, and we have no evidence AGAINST, which is why it's the theory that is currently the accepted one.


It might still be falsified; it is also plausible that life sprang up in similar fashion in multiple places, but in the same simple structure. It would be almost impossible to prove that that occurred, and I question whether they would even be considered distinct ancestors, but it's possible.

Not more plausible than a creator though!:

You still have given me absolutely no reason to believe in the plausibility of a creator. Nothing, except that you find it hard to believe that things happened without one. You're missing the other side of the coin: evidence FOR.

Meanwhile, in the absence of any evidence for creation (which you have never provided), in the absence of any evidence for the plausibility of a creator (which you have never provided), trying to claim that a creator is more likely than a series of chance events, each one of which we KNOW to be plausible, is absurd.

Nothing is plausible more than a creator is! how do you say it is plausible provide evidence , and I mean evidence that it is more plausible than a creator, and that for diversity of kinds alone.:

How is a creator plausible? We have no experience of any creation of the magnitude of the universe. It happened once, and far before we existed.

That you have to ask about "diversity of kinds" shows that you don't actually know about the theory you don't believe, which is sad. I wager I know far more about the various religious claims and supposed proofs of god than you do about evolution and its support.

Diversity of kinds is trivially explained by evolution, unless you're medic0506.

Give me any reason to think that God is plausible, other than your claim that you think the alternative is implausible. As is so often pointed out to theists, merely attacking a competing theory does not establish the validity of your own theory.

there are a lot of reasons if you want to reason, it is plausible by definition that anything is created,

No, it isn't.

the alternative is a week explanation and is very flawed.

Because you find it implausible?

all it has to support it are hints that can equally point to a creator, and it hides enormous questions that threaten it's validity.

Even if I grant that "all it has to support it are hints that can equally point to a creator", have you ever heard of the principle of parsimony, aka "Occam's Razor"?


Now that you worship evolution,

I worship nothing.

this same evolution need to be something written in the DNA of the species , that allows them to evolve to a certain extent, and not beyond, as scientists claim this option is triggered by necessity,

No, they don't. That's not at all a claim of evolutionary theory.

and necessity means , if the organism doesn't change, then the species will perish. what in the world could be the necessity that triggered the evolution of the first cell ?!

I'm really not trying to be mean or insulting. But it's VERY clear you know nothing about evolution.

Mutation happens. We know this. If a mutation benefits an organism, that organism does better. Yay for it! It breeds, and that gene continues on (in general, again oversimplifying). Eventually, as long as that gene is beneficial, it'll get to everywhere (provided there's selection pressure for it). Meanwhile, other genes are doing the same thing. When the information has changed enough, you wind up with a whole new animal.

and what is this "program" that limits the changes?

There isn't one.

in what way are animals better than unicells, are you seeing how it seems to be something planned even if you accept CD ?

There isn't any "planning". However, there are many obvious benefits to cells "teaming up".

But even if you demolished Common Descent, that wouldn't prove creationism. That would just get us to "We have no reasonable theory".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!