Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Smithereens and Morals/Empathy

bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Smithereens believes, for reasons of religious indoctrination, that his god (not any other god) actually supplies the morals that have allowed our species to develop over the last 200,000yrs or so to become the dominant species on this planet.

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Morality is probably our greatest advantage and it is an evolutionary advantage. Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage in this the 21st century.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 5:02:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

[citation needed]
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 5:02:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Have you got a single fact to back that up?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 5:11:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
Smithereens believes, for reasons of religious indoctrination, that his god (not any other god) actually supplies the morals that have allowed our species to develop over the last 200,000yrs or so to become the dominant species on this planet.

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Morality is probably our greatest advantage and it is an evolutionary advantage. Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage in this the 21st century.

Response: Evolution is false. So it is a senseless claim to say anything is a benefit from evolution when evolution is fiction.

1. Scientific facts are concluded from observable and testable evidence. Yet there is no observable evidence of a species evolving into another species, proving such a claim is false.

2.Scientific facts are also concluded when there is observable evidence of the same repeating results from the same process. So in evolution, all we see is microevolution in the same species, not macroevolution of a species evolving into another. So science proves that microevolution is true and macroevolution is false.

3. Creation by chance or randomness causes disorder, not a repeating pattern. One can easily see and prove this. Try throwing a bucket of paint on the wall to create a checkerboard pattern without choosing to align the paint. You can"t. Proving that repeating patterns are the result of intelligent design, not randomness or chance. So the theory of evolution is false since we see the same patterns of similarity in a species, which cannot derive from randomness.

4. Science insist on claiming evolution is fact and people believe it because scientists say so. Yet scientists are guilty of making up lies to prove evolution, such as the case of Piltdown man and javaman, (both are fake fossils) which were made up by scientists to prove evolution.

5.Scientists even went further in their lie by capturing an African boy named Ota Benga and putting him in a zoo with monkeys to try to prove he was proof of evolution. The boy eventually committed suicide.

6. The discovery of fossils from transitional species has never been discovered.

6 irrefutable facts that show evolution is clearly false.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:26:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 5:11:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
Smithereens believes, for reasons of religious indoctrination, that his god (not any other god) actually supplies the morals that have allowed our species to develop over the last 200,000yrs or so to become the dominant species on this planet.

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Morality is probably our greatest advantage and it is an evolutionary advantage. Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage in this the 21st century.

Response: Evolution is false. So it is a senseless claim to say anything is a benefit from evolution when evolution is fiction.

1. Scientific facts are concluded from observable and testable evidence. Yet there is no observable evidence of a species evolving into another species, proving such a claim is false.



2.Scientific facts are also concluded when there is observable evidence of the same repeating results from the same process. So in evolution, all we see is microevolution in the same species, not macroevolution of a species evolving into another. So science proves that microevolution is true and macroevolution is false.


3. Creation by chance or randomness causes disorder, not a repeating pattern. One can easily see and prove this. Try throwing a bucket of paint on the wall to create a checkerboard pattern without choosing to align the paint. You can"t. Proving that repeating patterns are the result of intelligent design, not randomness or chance. So the theory of evolution is false since we see the same patterns of similarity in a species, which cannot derive from randomness.


4. Science insist on claiming evolution is fact and people believe it because scientists say so. Yet scientists are guilty of making up lies to prove evolution, such as the case of Piltdown man and javaman, (both are fake fossils) which were made up by scientists to prove evolution.


5.Scientists even went further in their lie by capturing an African boy named Ota Benga and putting him in a zoo with monkeys to try to prove he was proof of evolution. The boy eventually committed suicide.


6. The discovery of fossils from transitional species has never been discovered.

6 irrefutable facts that show evolution is clearly false.

So says Dr Fati.
hahahahahaha
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:40:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
Smithereens believes, for reasons of religious indoctrination, that his god (not any other god) actually supplies the morals that have allowed our species to develop over the last 200,000yrs or so to become the dominant species on this planet.

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Morality is probably our greatest advantage and it is an evolutionary advantage. Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage in this the 21st century.

So then what about the scientific theory that advanced civilizations tend to destroy themselves soon after splitting the atom, explaining the lack of any known advanced civilizations? Are you really so sure that human morality is an evolutionary advantage? And what happened to the "selfish-gene"?
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:48:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 8:40:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
Smithereens believes, for reasons of religious indoctrination, that his god (not any other god) actually supplies the morals that have allowed our species to develop over the last 200,000yrs or so to become the dominant species on this planet.

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Morality is probably our greatest advantage and it is an evolutionary advantage. Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage in this the 21st century.

So then what about the scientific theory that advanced civilizations tend to destroy themselves soon after splitting the atom, explaining the lack of any known advanced civilizations? Are you really so sure that human morality is an evolutionary advantage? And what happened to the "selfish-gene"?
Can you please name all of the civilizations that have destroyed themselves shortly after splitting the atom?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:08:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 8:48:02 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/1/2014 8:40:14 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
Smithereens believes, for reasons of religious indoctrination, that his god (not any other god) actually supplies the morals that have allowed our species to develop over the last 200,000yrs or so to become the dominant species on this planet.

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Morality is probably our greatest advantage and it is an evolutionary advantage. Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage in this the 21st century.

So then what about the scientific theory that advanced civilizations tend to destroy themselves soon after splitting the atom, explaining the lack of any known advanced civilizations? Are you really so sure that human morality is an evolutionary advantage? And what happened to the "selfish-gene"?
Can you please name all of the civilizations that have destroyed themselves shortly after splitting the atom?

Nope. I don't know of any. The mere fact that they would be extinct would preclude that possibility, which is the reasoning behind the theory. Can you please prove that "humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition"?
E_Pluribus_Unum
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:31:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 5:11:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: Evolution is false. So it is a senseless claim to say anything is a benefit from evolution when evolution is fiction.

1. Scientific facts are concluded from observable and testable evidence. Yet there is no observable evidence of a species evolving into another species, proving such a claim is false.

2.Scientific facts are also concluded when there is observable evidence of the same repeating results from the same process. So in evolution, all we see is microevolution in the same species, not macroevolution of a species evolving into another. So science proves that microevolution is true and macroevolution is false.

. . .

6. The discovery of fossils from transitional species has never been discovered.

Your first and second points rest entirely on what a species is. A species is defined as a distinct population of organisms that naturally create fertile offspring. Of course, there has been the discovery of grizzly-polar bear hybrids, which were previously considered to be Ursus arctos and Ursus maritimus respectively. Using binomial nomenclature, we classified grizzly and polar bears as different species, yet they have naturally produced fertile offspring. This shows that a new definition of species could be used, but precision is certainly required.

That aside, let's create a though experiment, a Gedankenexperiment, if you will. Now, imagine we had a population of an organism in a given area. After a certain period of time, a certain circumstance occurs (say, a catastrophe) that splits this population in two. Generations pass, and natural selection works differently for each population. At a certain point, the mating process of these two populations of organisms could vary to the point one population naturally prefers there own population's process and always choose a mate from that population. You would now have two distinct populations that do not naturally create fertile offspring. Thus, two different species have developed. With this knowledge, your use of terms such as "macroevolution", "microevolution", and "species" are fundamentally flawed.

For your sixth point, I question the notion that no transitional species has been recorded. The best example of a transitional species that I can think of is Tiktaalik, a late Devonian period fossil, the first trio discovered by a team in northern Canada in a single expedition. Tiktaalik is widely considered to be perhaps the best candidate for the fish-amphibian transition
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 10:45:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:31:45 PM, E_Pluribus_Unum wrote:
At 5/1/2014 5:11:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: Evolution is false. So it is a senseless claim to say anything is a benefit from evolution when evolution is fiction.

1. Scientific facts are concluded from observable and testable evidence. Yet there is no observable evidence of a species evolving into another species, proving such a claim is false.

2.Scientific facts are also concluded when there is observable evidence of the same repeating results from the same process. So in evolution, all we see is microevolution in the same species, not macroevolution of a species evolving into another. So science proves that microevolution is true and macroevolution is false.

. . .

6. The discovery of fossils from transitional species has never been discovered.

Your first and second points rest entirely on what a species is. A species is defined as a distinct population of organisms that naturally create fertile offspring. Of course, there has been the discovery of grizzly-polar bear hybrids, which were previously considered to be Ursus arctos and Ursus maritimus respectively. Using binomial nomenclature, we classified grizzly and polar bears as different species, yet they have naturally produced fertile offspring. This shows that a new definition of species could be used, but precision is certainly required.

That aside, let's create a though experiment, a Gedankenexperiment, if you will. Now, imagine we had a population of an organism in a given area. After a certain period of time, a certain circumstance occurs (say, a catastrophe) that splits this population in two. Generations pass, and natural selection works differently for each population. At a certain point, the mating process of these two populations of organisms could vary to the point one population naturally prefers there own population's process and always choose a mate from that population. You would now have two distinct populations that do not naturally create fertile offspring. Thus, two different species have developed. With this knowledge, your use of terms such as "macroevolution", "microevolution", and "species" are fundamentally flawed.

For your sixth point, I question the notion that no transitional species has been recorded. The best example of a transitional species that I can think of is Tiktaalik, a late Devonian period fossil, the first trio discovered by a team in northern Canada in a single expedition. Tiktaalik is widely considered to be perhaps the best candidate for the fish-amphibian transition

Response: Yet your own example is proven false by science itself since scientific facts are concluded from observing and testing repeated results from the same process. Therefore, since we only see micro and not macroevolution, then macroevolution is false and proven so by science.

As for transitional species, it is a fact that scientists lie about fossil records and transitional species, such as piltdown man, javaman, and ota benga. So to now rely on scientists that a transitional species was discovered requires proof that there words are teue, which you do not have. And since we know that in science macroevolution is false, then clearly no transitional species has ever existed and the reports they are is false, just like piltdown man, javaman, and ota benga.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:18:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and this poor thing has as little knowledge as it's possible to have.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 11:52:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 5:11:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
Smithereens believes, for reasons of religious indoctrination, that his god (not any other god) actually supplies the morals that have allowed our species to develop over the last 200,000yrs or so to become the dominant species on this planet.

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Morality is probably our greatest advantage and it is an evolutionary advantage. Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage in this the 21st century.

Response: Evolution is false. So it is a senseless claim to say anything is a benefit from evolution when evolution is fiction.

1. Scientific facts are concluded from observable and testable evidence. Yet there is no observable evidence of a species evolving into another species, proving such a claim is false.


If that proves evolution to be false, then lack of evidence for a deity proves that religion is false.

But I guess you ignore that? After all, criticisms can only be applied to views that are contrary to yours?



2.Scientific facts are also concluded when there is observable evidence of the same repeating results from the same process. So in evolution, all we see is microevolution in the same species, not macroevolution of a species evolving into another. So science proves that microevolution is true and macroevolution is false.


See above.

Also, I suppose you think 95% of astronomical science is "false", then? Because we don't have "observable evidence of the same repeating results from the same process" when it comes to our theories about, say, supernovas.

But I forgot, you're just spouting nonsense to cling blindly to your worldview that doesn't include evolution.


3. Creation by chance or randomness causes disorder, not a repeating pattern. One can easily see and prove this. Try throwing a bucket of paint on the wall to create a checkerboard pattern without choosing to align the paint. You can"t. Proving that repeating patterns are the result of intelligent design, not randomness or chance. So the theory of evolution is false since we see the same patterns of similarity in a species, which cannot derive from randomness.


Mmk.

First, species have a "pattern of similarity" because of genetics. You are being idiotic.

Second, please refer to physics. Quantum mechanics (which are accepted by every physicist, Einstein was proven wrong, don't even argue this point) SHOWS that all of the perceived "order" that arises and that is analyzed in Newtonian physics is the result of an almost infinite number of RANDOM quantum events. Pure and total chaos brings the massive order that is physics.

And I think using another science as an example is better than some half-baked metaphor to paint.


4. Science insist on claiming evolution is fact and people believe it because scientists say so. Yet scientists are guilty of making up lies to prove evolution, such as the case of Piltdown man and javaman, (both are fake fossils) which were made up by scientists to prove evolution.


Ad hominem, says nothing at all about the truth of evolution.


5.Scientists even went further in their lie by capturing an African boy named Ota Benga and putting him in a zoo with monkeys to try to prove he was proof of evolution. The boy eventually committed suicide.


See above.

Hurr religious people burned people at the stake during the Inquisition, this PROVES religion is false!!!


6. The discovery of fossils from transitional species has never been discovered.


Right, ignoring all of the fossils that show clear evolution in traits between succeeding generations. But, I guess Noah's Ark contained tens of thousands of unique genetic strains that magically microeevolved to all of today's billions of species within the course of 5000 years?

Seems legit.

6 irrefutable facts that show evolution is clearly false.

Try again.

I hope you are trolling, I really do.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 12:30:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 11:52:00 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 5:11:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:

1. Scientific facts are concluded from observable and testable evidence. Yet there is no observable evidence of a species evolving into another species, proving such a claim is false.


If that proves evolution to be false, then lack of evidence for a deity proves that religion is false.

Response: Yet there is no lack of evidence for Allah. (See Ask Allah (swt) thread)



2.Scientific facts are also concluded when there is observable evidence of the same repeating results from the same process. So in evolution, all we see is microevolution in the same species, not macroevolution of a species evolving into another. So science proves that microevolution is true and macroevolution is false.


See above.

Response: Likewise.
Also, I suppose you think 95% of astronomical science is "false", then? Because we don't have "observable evidence of the same repeating results from the same process" when it comes to our theories about, say, supernovas.

But I forgot, you're just spouting nonsense to cling blindly to your worldview that doesn't include evolution.

Response: Actually we do. Debunked.

3. Creation by chance or randomness causes disorder, not a repeating pattern. One can easily see and prove this. Try throwing a bucket of paint on the wall to create a checkerboard pattern without choosing to align the paint. You can"t. Proving that repeating patterns are the result of intelligent design, not randomness or chance. So the theory of evolution is false since we see the same patterns of similarity in a species, which cannot derive from randomness.


Mmk.

First, species have a "pattern of similarity" because of genetics. You are being idiotic.

Second, please refer to physics. Quantum mechanics (which are accepted by every physicist, Einstein was proven wrong, don't even argue this point) SHOWS that all of the perceived "order" that arises and that is analyzed in Newtonian physics is the result of an almost infinite number of RANDOM quantum events. Pure and total chaos brings the massive order that is physics.

And I think using another science as an example is better than some half-baked metaphor to paint.

Response: Yet the fact that you failed to draw a simple checkerboard without choice proves my point. Dummy. If randomness is factual in quantum physics than you should be able to apply it to drawing a simple checkerboard which you can't. So you just refuted yourself.

4. Science insist on claiming evolution is fact and people believe it because scientists say so. Yet scientists are guilty of making up lies to prove evolution, such as the case of Piltdown man and javaman, (both are fake fossils) which were made up by scientists to prove evolution.


Ad hominem, says nothing at all about the truth of evolution.
Response: Weak response. The result of a failed rebuttal.

5.Scientists even went further in their lie by capturing an African boy named Ota Benga and putting him in a zoo with monkeys to try to prove he was proof of evolution. The boy eventually committed suicide.


See above.

Hurr religious people burned people at the stake during the Inquisition, this PROVES religion is false!!!
Response: Burning people is not the same as falsifying evidence. Idiot.

6. The discovery of fossils from transitional species has never been discovered.


Right, ignoring all of the fossils that show clear evolution in traits between succeeding generations. But, I guess Noah's Ark contained tens of thousands of unique genetic strains that magically microeevolved to all of today's billions of species within the course of 5000 years?

Seems legit.

Response: Rather, being foolish and claiming fake fossils are actual evidence is the sign of delusion. Thanks for the clarification.
6 irrefutable facts that show evolution is clearly false.

Try again.

I hope you are trolling, I really do.

Response: I hope someone paid you to post such idiocy, for I find it hard to believe that such idiocy was purposeful and actually believed. Try again.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 6:28:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 12:30:18 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 11:52:00 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 5:11:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:

1. Scientific facts are concluded from observable and testable evidence. Yet there is no observable evidence of a species evolving into another species, proving such a claim is false.


If that proves evolution to be false, then lack of evidence for a deity proves that religion is false.

Response: Yet there is no lack of evidence for Allah. (See Ask Allah (swt) thread)


Lol there are more evidence for ghosts than there are for "Allah".



2.Scientific facts are also concluded when there is observable evidence of the same repeating results from the same process. So in evolution, all we see is microevolution in the same species, not macroevolution of a species evolving into another. So science proves that microevolution is true and macroevolution is false.


See above.

Response: Likewise.
Also, I suppose you think 95% of astronomical science is "false", then? Because we don't have "observable evidence of the same repeating results from the same process" when it comes to our theories about, say, supernovas.

But I forgot, you're just spouting nonsense to cling blindly to your worldview that doesn't include evolution.

Response: Actually we do. Debunked.


And this shows you have no idea what the crap you are talking about. I'll use this as an opportunity for education, maybe you'll learn something.

What we see with telescopes is an instant, a "snapshot", if you will, of the universe. We DO NOT SEE a star turning into a white dwarf. We DO NOT SEE the birth of stars.

What we CAN do is infer from the various snapshots that we do see and piece together a logical narrative that explains how they came to be. There is no observation of "transitional" stages, and no experimentation (obviously). Almost everything we know about astronomy is historical inference. So either it is all "false", to use your insane logic, or evolution is not necessarily "false".

3. Creation by chance or randomness causes disorder, not a repeating pattern. One can easily see and prove this. Try throwing a bucket of paint on the wall to create a checkerboard pattern without choosing to align the paint. You can"t. Proving that repeating patterns are the result of intelligent design, not randomness or chance. So the theory of evolution is false since we see the same patterns of similarity in a species, which cannot derive from randomness.


Mmk.

First, species have a "pattern of similarity" because of genetics. You are being idiotic.

Second, please refer to physics. Quantum mechanics (which are accepted by every physicist, Einstein was proven wrong, don't even argue this point) SHOWS that all of the perceived "order" that arises and that is analyzed in Newtonian physics is the result of an almost infinite number of RANDOM quantum events. Pure and total chaos brings the massive order that is physics.

And I think using another science as an example is better than some half-baked metaphor to paint.

Response: Yet the fact that you failed to draw a simple checkerboard without choice proves my point. Dummy. If randomness is factual in quantum physics than you should be able to apply it to drawing a simple checkerboard which you can't. So you just refuted yourself.


No, order out of chaos CAN happen, and I demonstrated that by quantum mechanics. Do you disagree with quantum mechanics? Or maybe you just don't understand what the terms mean, since the peak of your analysis is a checkerboard.

Order can come out of chaos, it doesn't mean that it always does. Your checkerboard analogy is completely and utterly useless and, if it held any water, would invalidate quantum mechanics.

Your metaphor is inapplicable both logically and empirically.

4. Science insist on claiming evolution is fact and people believe it because scientists say so. Yet scientists are guilty of making up lies to prove evolution, such as the case of Piltdown man and javaman, (both are fake fossils) which were made up by scientists to prove evolution.


Ad hominem, says nothing at all about the truth of evolution.
Response: Weak response. The result of a failed rebuttal.


Response: Weak response. The result of a failed counter-rebuttal.

Do I need to explain why ad hominem is a fallacy?

5.Scientists even went further in their lie by capturing an African boy named Ota Benga and putting him in a zoo with monkeys to try to prove he was proof of evolution. The boy eventually committed suicide.


See above.

Hurr religious people burned people at the stake during the Inquisition, this PROVES religion is false!!!
Response: Burning people is not the same as falsifying evidence. Idiot.


Says the one who compares biology to paint on a canvas, but I digress.

But what's the difference? You're saying evolution is false because 1% of the people who argue for it used lies.

I'm saying religion is false because 1% of religious people are awful people.

Does this show to you why ad hominem is a logical fallacy?

6. The discovery of fossils from transitional species has never been discovered.


Right, ignoring all of the fossils that show clear evolution in traits between succeeding generations. But, I guess Noah's Ark contained tens of thousands of unique genetic strains that magically microeevolved to all of today's billions of species within the course of 5000 years?

Seems legit.

Response: Rather, being foolish and claiming fake fossils are actual evidence is the sign of delusion. Thanks for the clarification.

I didn't say fake fossils are evidence, idiot. Those are 1 piece of false evidence in thousands of pieces of TRUE AND INDISPUTABLE data from which we can INFER (like astronomy, remember?) that macro-evolution is a reasonable explanation.

6 irrefutable facts that show evolution is clearly false.

Try again.

I hope you are trolling, I really do.

Response: I hope someone paid you to post such idiocy, for I find it hard to believe that such idiocy was purposeful and actually believed. Try again.

Try saying idiocy more times in a sentence.
E_Pluribus_Unum
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 11:18:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 10:45:21 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: Yet your own example is proven false by science itself since scientific facts are concluded from observing and testing repeated results from the same process. Therefore, since we only see micro and not macroevolution, then macroevolution is false and proven so by science.

As for transitional species, it is a fact that scientists lie about fossil records and transitional species, such as piltdown man, javaman, and ota benga. So to now rely on scientists that a transitional species was discovered requires proof that there words are teue, which you do not have. And since we know that in science macroevolution is false, then clearly no transitional species has ever existed and the reports they are is false, just like piltdown man, javaman, and ota benga.

I think the main reason "science" has only seen "micro and not macroevolution" is because the scientific method and other processes we use in scientific fields as we know it today were only invented about four centuries ago (notably from Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes). "Macroevolution" takes places over dozens of millennium at the quickest under punctuated equilibrium, or millions of years in gradualism.

It is not a fact that scientists lie about fossil records and transitional species. None of your examples were less than eighty years ago. You can't really say the same happens now, it's similar to thinking a twenty-year-old German should apologize for starting World War II. It seems a bit naive to state a majority of scientists, some 95% in a study I recall but cannot find, all are lying about the evidences of evolution. I mean, one can only tell the truth, tell a lie, or tell a statement that they believe to be true. Are you going to say these thousands of people decided to lie for reasons untold? Also, why would one argue that "science" proves his position is true when he doesn't even trust professional practitioners of it?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 11:32:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
Smithereens believes, for reasons of religious indoctrination, that his god (not any other god) actually supplies the morals that have allowed our species to develop over the last 200,000yrs or so to become the dominant species on this planet.

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Morality is probably our greatest advantage and it is an evolutionary advantage. Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage in this the 21st century.

What is your opinion on this article?
http://www.nytimes.com...
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 8:32:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
Smithereens believes, for reasons of religious indoctrination, that his god (not any other god) actually supplies the morals that have allowed our species to develop over the last 200,000yrs or so to become the dominant species on this planet.

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Morality is probably our greatest advantage and it is an evolutionary advantage. Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage in this the 21st century.

You were doing OK until that last sentence. Morality and religion grew up together in the evolution of human experience. And they are still very much intertwined. Just as religion is the practice of a theological proposition in one's life, morality is the practice of ethical imperatives in one's life. And for many people, most, in fact, their ethical imperatives are established via their theological perspective.

Theology/religion is both an advantage and a disadvantage to the evolution of humanity, just as is true of science, art, politics, medicine, and commerce. Any major human endeavor will be both an advantage and a disadvantage to the evolution of mankind.

Paradox is what truth looks like to we humans. I think it's important to remember that.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 8:38:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
Smithereens believes, for reasons of religious indoctrination, that his god (not any other god) actually supplies the morals that have allowed our species to develop over the last 200,000yrs or so to become the dominant species on this planet.

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Morality is probably our greatest advantage and it is an evolutionary advantage. Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage in this the 21st century.

There is something very suspect about human morality.

If you killed and cut up and skin a human child and cook and eat it, your a monster.

If you do it to a chicken....................KFC.

How convenient for us humans.........not so much the chicken.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 9:02:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 8:38:17 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

There is something very suspect about human morality.

If you killed and cut up and skin a human child and cook and eat it, your a monster.

If you do it to a chicken....................KFC.

How convenient for us humans.........not so much the chicken.

Why would you find this "suspect"? You suspect it of what? Being human-centric? Why wouldn't human morality be human-centric?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 9:06:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 9:02:49 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/5/2014 8:38:17 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

There is something very suspect about human morality.

If you killed and cut up and skin a human child and cook and eat it, your a monster.

If you do it to a chicken....................KFC.

How convenient for us humans.........not so much the chicken.

Why would you find this "suspect"? You suspect it of what? Being human-centric? Why wouldn't human morality be human-centric?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 9:14:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 11:32:22 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
Smithereens believes, for reasons of religious indoctrination, that his god (not any other god) actually supplies the morals that have allowed our species to develop over the last 200,000yrs or so to become the dominant species on this planet.

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Morality is probably our greatest advantage and it is an evolutionary advantage. Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage in this the 21st century.

What is your opinion on this article?
http://www.nytimes.com...

I only read a little of it but what I read would seem to support my contention that evolution is the reason for our morality and not some imaginary god.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 9:44:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 9:14:51 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:32:22 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:15:27 AM, bulproof wrote:
Smithereens believes, for reasons of religious indoctrination, that his god (not any other god) actually supplies the morals that have allowed our species to develop over the last 200,000yrs or so to become the dominant species on this planet.

Reality is that humanity developed morality as one of the advantages that an advanced intelligence has in order that it developes a dominance over other species with less intelligence but greater physical dominance than the opposition.

Morality is probably our greatest advantage and it is an evolutionary advantage. Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage in this the 21st century.

What is your opinion on this article?
http://www.nytimes.com...

I only read a little of it but what I read would seem to support my contention that evolution is the reason for our morality and not some imaginary god.

It does, I am just curious on if you think it is a good representation of that contention.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 10:08:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 9:14:51 AM, bulproof wrote:

I only read a little of it but what I read would seem to support my contention that evolution is the reason for our morality and not some imaginary god.

Why would you assume these to be mutually exclusive of each other? The concept of God and the concept of ethics/morality evolved together. Each informed the other, and they still do.

By the way, ethics and morality are just as "imaginary" as God is. You might want to consider that.