Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Tobacco!

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2009 4:40:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
That clip was electric! Great pick.

What a load of contradictions wedged in there like no ones business. Evolutionist should be ashamed for following such 'in your face' lies.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2009 5:21:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Obvious judicious editing aside, what fossils in relation to evolution is is a means of both falsification for evolution (we should not find X amongst Y) and it details the history of changes. It is not needed to prove evolution; if evolution is true however we would expect to find fossil evidence. Which we do.

As for the 'we make it up as we go along' fossil argument - fossil remnants are located within specific geological strata which enable those professionals involved to accurately determine the sequence (age) of occurence (laying down of fossils). Whale example - if evolution was true we would expect to see in those related fossils a gradual change (millions of years) from land >> sea. You need to understand the depth of specifity that goes into the demarcation of one fossil species from another to appreciate the complexity involved in saying 'fossil X is fossil Y with change Z' in addition to its position within a geological time. It wasn't - were evolution true then the fossil progression of land > water over coherent geological timeframes would occur. It wasn't that scientists went ...huh whale skeletons..fingers!!! lets make the land bits fit. No, the fossil history led to the realisation that whales were evolved from land animals given fossil records; given they are mammals; given morpholgy; given vestigal characterisitcs.

Chen's Phyla in the Cambrian - (Phylum are one order *below* Kingdoms i.e. refers to all major body plans) - is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion - it doesn't discredit Darwin as the video makes out - branchings occur from *major lines* which are the *phylum* (think thick branches > smaller). Pre Cambrian evidence as current shows that the 'explosion' wasn't so spectacular as originally detailed.

Common design argument; is simply an attempt to refute DNA similarities between species. It adds nothing to any discussion, it does not *refute* evolution is any way, it is not testable, it makes no predictions, it is as valid to say we were gene coded by an alien algorythym. If evolution were true however - remeber the hypothesis came before genetic level evidence; then we would expect to see genetic similarities between closely related species and non closely related species - which we do.

Evolution will have *explanatory power* as to why humans and chimpanzees both share a faulty Vitamin C gene - god dun it - adds nothing.

Evolution is no longer occuring argument.
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.physorg.com...
http://www.pbs.org...
http://biomed.brown.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Lower back pain refutes evolution... seriously? Our spines are not pefectly developed for upright position, neither are our feet, see also the remnant tailbone.

Human's are not evolving (gaining something new ooooo).
http://www.aegis.org...
http://discovermagazine.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2009 6:40:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 4/9/2009 5:21:01 PM, Puck wrote:
Obvious judicious editing aside, what fossils in relation to evolution is is a means of both falsification for evolution (we should not find X amongst Y) and it details the history of changes. It is not needed to prove evolution; if evolution is true however we would expect to find fossil evidence. Which we do.

As for the 'we make it up as we go along' fossil argument - fossil remnants are located within specific geological strata which enable those professionals involved to accurately determine the sequence (age) of occurence (laying down of fossils). Whale example - if evolution was true we would expect to see in those related fossils a gradual change (millions of years) from land >> sea. You need to understand the depth of specifity that goes into the demarcation of one fossil species from another to appreciate the complexity involved in saying 'fossil X is fossil Y with change Z' in addition to its position within a geological time. It wasn't - were evolution true then the fossil progression of land > water over coherent geological timeframes would occur. It wasn't that scientists went ...huh whale skeletons..fingers!!! lets make the land bits fit. No, the fossil history led to the realisation that whales were evolved from land animals given fossil records; given they are mammals; given morpholgy; given vestigal characterisitcs.

Chen's Phyla in the Cambrian - (Phylum are one order *below* Kingdoms i.e. refers to all major body plans) - is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion - it doesn't discredit Darwin as the video makes out - branchings occur from *major lines* which are the *phylum* (think thick branches > smaller). Pre Cambrian evidence as current shows that the 'explosion' wasn't so spectacular as originally detailed.

Common design argument; is simply an attempt to refute DNA similarities between species. It adds nothing to any discussion, it does not *refute* evolution is any way, it is not testable, it makes no predictions, it is as valid to say we were gene coded by an alien algorythym. If evolution were true however - remeber the hypothesis came before genetic level evidence; then we would expect to see genetic similarities between closely related species and non closely related species - which we do.

Evolution will have *explanatory power* as to why humans and chimpanzees both share a faulty Vitamin C gene - god dun it - adds nothing.

Evolution is no longer occuring argument.
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.physorg.com...
http://www.pbs.org...
http://biomed.brown.edu...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Lower back pain refutes evolution... seriously? Our spines are not pefectly developed for upright position, neither are our feet, see also the remnant tailbone.

Human's are not evolving (gaining something new ooooo).
http://www.aegis.org...
http://discovermagazine.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.newscientist.com...
http://www.livescience.com...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...


You know that not everyone will be changed. That your worthless argueing means nothing to anyone. You can send all the links you wish, but I have had the Holy Spirit come to me when I was born again and tell me that evolution and the big bang never happened or never happen. I promise you that. I trust Jesus more than your petty links and your vasting for victory. They both are meaningless because Jesus does not support them in the slightest.

I have said why evolution is a mix between Christian and Satanic beliefs, evolution with science do not mix at all. And your result is Atheist evolution. Science is only used in evolution when you talk about what is tested as fact and realiable data today. Just like Dr Kent Hovind has said, that rat posion has only 5% posion in it and the rest is eatable. Just like evolution, 5% is posion and the rest is not. Now you may be wondering. 'Well most of evolution is right then, my point made' No that 5% kills that person into believeing lies. Like the 5% is responsible for the death of the rat. That 5% is the lie of the age of the earth being 4.6 billion years old, creatures evolving into different kinds, And that is all. That is the 5% what kills students off from the truth, that is the 5% that kills students off from knowing what is good and evil. That 5% leads them away from Jesus. Away from God.

"Lower back pain refutes evolution... seriously? Our spines are not pefectly developed for upright position, neither are our feet, see also the remnant tailbone."

How about looking at it the other way? Its called getting warn down over time DNA becomes less and less organized through genetic mutation (which is only negitive) and that we never advance to become better and better adapted. We might grow taller and stronger and live longer. But this is what the Bible speaks about, that man will try to become like God. Man may try and will, and get so far. But will never be anything like God. Ever! Satan wants to be God and Satan users sinners to drive God and pull God down, kill God. Forget and dimiss God as if God never existed. This is what Satan wants.

It makes much more sense that as time goes on we become worse, thing die out and creatures get less advanced. Not becoming a worn from a mamale over millions of years but becomming a worser kind over time. In till that kind can not maintain it's self of steam and dies out.

I hate evolution, not because it goes against me but because it goes against God and thu it is a lie. The Bible warned us of such a lie, it says the Truth will be exchanged for a lie. That is final.

Deep in your heart, that you can not trust. There is emptyness which evolution and all such lies will never fill. That place is where God has made him self know which you choose to ignore. And that is the bottom line.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2009 12:38:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/9/2009 5:21:01 PM, Puck wrote:
Obvious judicious editing aside, what fossils in relation to evolution is is a means of both falsification for evolution (we should not find X amongst Y) and it details the history of changes. It is not needed to prove evolution; if evolution is true however we would expect to find fossil evidence. Which we do.

As for the 'we make it up as we go along' fossil argument - fossil remnants are located within specific geological strata which enable those professionals involved to accurately determine the sequence (age) of occurence (laying down of fossils). Whale example - if evolution was true we would expect to see in those related fossils a gradual change (millions of years) from land >> sea. You need to understand the depth of specifity that goes into the demarcation of one fossil species from another to appreciate the complexity involved in saying 'fossil X is fossil Y with change Z' in addition to its position within a geological time. It wasn't - were evolution true then the fossil progression of land > water over coherent geological timeframes would occur. It wasn't that scientists went ...huh whale skeletons..fingers!!! lets make the land bits fit. No, the fossil history led to the realisation that whales were evolved from land animals given fossil records; given they are mammals; given morpholgy; given vestigal characterisitcs.

Chen's Phyla in the Cambrian - (Phylum are one order *below* Kingdoms i.e. refers to all major body plans) - is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion - it doesn't discredit Darwin as the video makes out - branchings occur from *major lines* which are the *phylum* (think thick branches > smaller). Pre Cambrian evidence as current shows that the 'explosion' wasn't so spectacular as originally detailed.

Common design argument; is simply an attempt to refute DNA similarities between species. It adds nothing to any discussion, it does not *refute* evolution is any way, it is not testable, it makes no predictions, it is as valid to say we were gene coded by an alien algorythym. If evolution were true however - remeber the hypothesis came before genetic level evidence; then we would expect to see genetic similarities between closely related species and non closely related species - which we do.

Evolution will have *explanatory power* as to why humans and chimpanzees both share a faulty Vitamin C gene - god dun it - adds nothing.

Evolution is no longer occuring argument.

Lower back pain refutes evolution... seriously? Our spines are not pefectly developed for upright position, neither are our feet, see also the remnant tailbone.


NO, you mean you are no longer ACCEPTING argument! Exactly the same as on these forums, you guys think if you treat us like a bunch of credulous morons that actually MAKES us a bunch of credulous morons! that's ALL you got! ACTING superior!
Fossils can NEVER be used in evidence because we'll never know if that particular animal produced offspring.
They claim to date the fossils from the strata and... the strata from the fossils!
CIRCULAR REASONING!
Talking of reasoning.. IF reason itself 'evolved' from nothing and doesn't 'know' where it is headed (ie there is no 'ultimate' reality) then WHY should we trust our OWN reason?
Answer THAT and stay mildly fashionable!
The Cross.. the Cross.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2009 4:42:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/10/2009 12:38:18 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

NO, you mean you are no longer ACCEPTING argument!
Exactly the same as on these forums, you guys think if you treat us like a bunch of credulous morons that actually MAKES us a bunch of credulous morons! that's ALL you got! ACTING superior!

Given you don't refute my points, what does that leave me? 1. You have no knowledge of the processes involved. 2. You have no interest in debating merely Gish Gallop techniques. 3. You have poor discernment skills for locating sources to support your arguments. 4. You have no interest in being rational with opposing arguments.

There is no global conspiracy against Christians. If there was data to support your claims it would be published and peer reviewed.

Fossils can NEVER be used in evidence because we'll never know if that particular animal produced offspring.

Read where they are not used as that at all - it is given location of fossil series in geological strata whereby *if evolution was true* we would expect to find evidence in the fossil series in a certain order that is used to support it. It is not woohoo fossils Darwin yayayayayayay! It is a line of evidence used to *support* not confirm a theory whereby it is entirely possible to prove evolution wrong were the fossil record to indicate it as such. But it doesn't. Where are your rabbits in the Pre Cambrian?

They claim to date the fossils from the strata and... the strata from the fossils!
CIRCULAR REASONING!

The only relative dating done is the date of the fossil strata in *relation* to *other* fossils or rock strata (not just the area but globally) - not a comfirmation of either.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Talking of reasoning.. IF reason itself 'evolved' from nothing and doesn't 'know' where it is headed (ie there is no 'ultimate' reality) then WHY should we trust our OWN reason?

Evovlved from nothing? We have brains. They developed. The skill and accuracy of ones reasoning is based on the concepts you hold and the epistomolgy you engage in.

If you only engage in confirmation bias - traditional creationist method - ones reasoning is unsound.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2009 5:16:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/9/2009 6:40:03 PM, GodSands wrote:

You know that not everyone will be changed. That your worthless argueing means nothing to anyone.

Given your lack of omniscience an over reaching claim. I have no desire to change your mind, I have no desire to make you an atheist, I have no desire to change who you are. Which still doesn't remove the evidence as it is, nor the chance that someone may read and on their own merits investigate further. Works for both of us. :)

You can send all the links you wish, but I have had the Holy Spirit come to me when I was born again and tell me that evolution and the big bang never happened or never happen.

And I'm equally sure voices in my head are not valid claims against the nature of reality.

I promise you that. I trust Jesus more than your petty links and your vasting for victory.

I have no doubt that you do. You are not my intent, my goal nor my purpose.

They both are meaningless because Jesus does not support them in the slightest.

Jesus was a bronze age prophet, his understanding of many many things would of been severely limited. Just because Jesus didn't mention plate tectonics does not mean earthquakes do not occur.

I have said why evolution is a mix between Christian and Satanic beliefs, evolution with science do not mix at all.

It is a theory derived from evidence using the scientific process - not a Christian god dun it approach.

And your result is Atheist evolution.

And Christian evolutionists? And Buddhist evolutionists? And Islamic evolutionists?

Science is only used in evolution when you talk about what is tested as fact and realiable data today.

So the whole lot then.

Just like Dr Kent Hovind has said, that rat posion has only 5% posion in it and the rest is eatable. Just like evolution, 5% is posion and the rest is not.

Hovind is not the best source on what is good science.

Now you may be wondering. 'Well most of evolution is right then, my point made'

Saying "most" without showing what parts fail or succeed is rather pointless. :)

That 5% is the lie of the age of the earth being 4.6 billion years old, creatures evolving into different kinds, And that is all.

1.Age of earth and evolution are seperate - different theories, different evidence, an older earth was established *prior* to Darwin.

That is the 5% what kills students off from the truth, that is the 5% that kills students off from knowing what is good and evil. That 5% leads them away from Jesus. Away from God.

Obviously not given the amount of non YEC Christians.

How about looking at it the other way? Its called getting warn down over time DNA becomes less and less organized through genetic mutation (which is only negitive)

Cells deteriorate; mutations are not all negative, unless you consider living longer healthier, fitter etc negative.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://users.rcn.com...

and that we never advance to become better and better adapted. We might grow taller and stronger and live longer.

That's not better adapted? lol Add smarter too which is far more important.

But this is what the Bible speaks about, that man will try to become like God.
Man may try and will, and get so far. But will never be anything like God. Ever!

True.. nonexistence is hard to achieve when you exist.

Satan wants to be God and Satan users sinners to drive God and pull God down, kill God. Forget and dimiss God as if God never existed. This is what Satan wants.

Or, Satan implanted a book called the Bible into the world to trick people into not finding the real right way to Heaven. Tricksy bugger.

It makes much more sense that as time goes on we become worse, thing die out and creatures get less advanced.

Less advanced huh? Backwards evolution? Fairly sure thats contained deep in the South of the USA <.<

Not becoming a worn from a mamale over millions of years but becomming a worser kind over time.

Yer actually it was worms >> <large intervening species> mammals.

I hate evolution, not because it goes against me but because it goes against God. and thu it is a lie. The Bible warned us of such a lie, it says the Truth will be exchanged for a lie. That is final.

One would think then that god would create reality to match that. Shame he didn't, because that would really help your cause.

Deep in your heart, that you can not trust. There is emptyness which evolution and all such lies will never fill.

There is no such hole within me which means either God is false, you are, or both are. :)

That place is where God has made him self know which you choose to ignore.

Nope not that one either.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2009 9:36:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
How sarcastic, do you not get it, that you can not use fossils to prove evolution. Like we all have said you do not know whether or not a fossils had off spring, unless you find a fossil giving birth. Which they have - that just poing right at the globle flood though.

To you who claim to be Christian and believe in evolution, you are no different to atheists to me. You say there is a God and you accept Jesus as your saviour, but you do not act on that. Because evolution and the big bang drags you down. Wil be believe the scientists if they found out what happened before this big bang? It says those who teach chrildren false teachings and lies are betting off stringing rope around your neck and attacting and rock to the other side and hurling your self into the ocean. I am serious, just like DCB I can not trust anyone of your Christians who believe in evolution. Go sort your selves out right Now. Right Now!!!

Punk listen to me, evolution is a cause for sin, you know why Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree? Because Satan said you will be gods. You believe in evolution because you hate God. You want to go to heaven, you just do not want God to be there. Your jealously is from Satan. Evolution is very convient for sins, so you believe in evolution conciously or not. Stop sinning is as hard as giving up your belief in evolution. There might as well be a sign saying, 'Sin this way, meet evolution on the way.' That is the path you have chosen.

Prove evolution to me. Because for a scientific theory you are struggling to convince me. It is like this. Evolution is the lunch pad for sin. There was no other reason why Adam and Eve disobeyed God but the thought of being like God.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2009 9:41:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
What's a lunch pad?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2009 3:08:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/10/2009 4:42:40 AM, Puck wrote:
At 4/10/2009 12:38:18 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

NO, you mean you are no longer ACCEPTING argument!
Exactly the same as on these forums, you guys think if you treat us like a bunch of credulous morons that actually MAKES us a bunch of credulous morons! that's ALL you got! ACTING superior!

Given you don't refute my points, what does that leave me? 1. You have no knowledge of the processes involved. 2. You have no interest in debating merely Gish Gallop techniques. 3. You have poor discernment skills for locating sources to support your arguments. 4. You have no interest in being rational with opposing arguments.
Yeah well.. thanks for not acting superior!

There is no global conspiracy against Christians. If there was data to support your claims it would be published and peer reviewed.
There is a conspiracy against HUMANITY.. satan hates us because we are made in HIS image.. There is something else apart from dry facts Puck..

Fossils can NEVER be used in evidence because we'll never know if that particular animal produced offspring.

Read where they are not used as that at all - it is given location of fossil series in geological strata whereby *if evolution was true* we would expect to find evidence in the fossil series in a certain order that is used to support it. It is not woohoo fossils Darwin yayayayayayay! It is a line of evidence used to *support* not confirm a theory whereby it is entirely possible to prove evolution wrong were the fossil record to indicate it as such. But it doesn't. Where are your rabbits in the Pre Cambrian?
Hey.. I DON'T have evidence.. BUT I'm admitting that. Neither do YOU.

They claim to date the fossils from the strata and... the strata from the fossils!
CIRCULAR REASONING!

The only relative dating done is the date of the fossil strata in *relation* to *other* fossils or rock strata (not just the area but globally) - not a comfirmation of either.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Talking of reasoning.. IF reason itself 'evolved' from nothing and doesn't 'know' where it is headed (ie there is no 'ultimate' reality) then WHY should we trust our OWN reason?

Evovlved from nothing? We have brains. They developed. The skill and accuracy of ones reasoning is based on the concepts you hold and the epistomolgy you engage in.

If you only engage in confirmation bias - traditional creationist method - ones reasoning is unsound.

That doesn't address the issue though.. the brain evovled from nothing SO reason had to.. If it is blindly going forward HOW can we trust it?
Again we are back to that old question of subjective/objective morality.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2009 5:37:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/11/2009 3:08:39 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

There is a conspiracy against HUMANITY.. satan hates us because we are made in HIS image.. There is something else apart from dry facts Puck..

You mean non reality?

Hey.. I DON'T have evidence.. BUT I'm admitting that. Neither do YOU.

Sure I do - there have been no rabbit fossils found in the Pre Cambrian. As a creationist it really is in your best interest to know about as much of fossils as possible as it is the one source of falsification that is most probable to derail Evolution.

Talking of reasoning.. IF reason itself 'evolved' from nothing and doesn't 'know' where it is headed (ie there is no 'ultimate' reality) then WHY should we trust our OWN reason?

Evovlved from nothing? We have brains. They developed. The skill and accuracy of ones reasoning is based on the concepts you hold and the epistomolgy you engage in.

That doesn't address the issue though.. the brain evovled from nothing SO reason had to..

Nothing? Brains are *organic*, reason is a process using the capabilities of an *organic* brain.

If it is blindly going forward HOW can we trust it?

Trust what? Our brains? The processes that allow us to reason the concepts we hold and the epistomolgy we engage in does not change.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2009 5:53:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/10/2009 9:36:58 AM, GodSands wrote:
How sarcastic, do you not get it, that you can not use fossils to prove evolution.

Apparently you do not get yet, that they are not used to prove it - it is a system of falsification and explanatory power.

Like we all have said you do not know whether or not a fossils had off spring,unless you find a fossil giving birth.

Ok..Animals exist is populations - fossil lineage is not built from 'hey a 1st generation offspring fossil!!' - the fossil lineage is over *millions of years*.

Which they have - that just poing right at the globle flood though.

Nope just means it died. They have fossil meteors next to a dead fossil animal that said meteor apparently hit too. :) Many things cause death.


Pu[c]k listen to me, evolution is a cause for sin, you know why Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree? Because Satan said you will be gods.

Actually 'be as gods' in reference to knowing right and wrong.

You believe in evolution because you hate God.

Nope.

You want to go to heaven, you just do not want God to be there.

Given its likely nonexistence for both, seems moot.

Your jealously is from Satan.

Nope, no jealousy either.

Evolution is very convient for sins, so you believe in evolution conciously or not. Stop sinning is as hard as giving up your belief in evolution.

Sinning presupposes the argument God exists - it only has relevance if you are a Christian. If evidence that evolution was false was made apparent then it would be discarded. I have no special ties with it, just reality.

Prove evolution to me. Because for a scientific theory you are struggling to convince me.

The error appears to be your end given the amount of individuals on this site who have spoon fed you information; given that afterwards you still spam the same errors.

It is like this. Evolution is the lunch pad for sin. There was no other reason why Adam and Eve disobeyed God but the thought of being like God.

They had no knowledge - which means no knowledge of what is a good choice, bad choice, good idea, bad idea, good consequence, bad consequence etc.
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2009 8:43:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I stopped watching after the first distortion.

- He wasn't saying "proof" in terms of how fossils prove evolution, he was telling people to take themselves to a museum to prove that transitional fossils ~exist~. He opened his point by stating "Creationists will deny the ~existence~ of thousands of transitional fossils,..." This was what he was talking about proving.

Another pseudo-intellectual attempt to bat in the same ballpark with disciplined thinkers grounded in reality has failed.

What else you got?
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 4:52:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/11/2009 5:37:35 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/11/2009 3:08:39 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

There is a conspiracy against HUMANITY.. satan hates us because we are made in HIS image.. There is something else apart from dry facts Puck..

You mean non reality?
Is there such a thing? even a lie is a 'reality'.. a real lie.

Hey.. I DON'T have evidence.. BUT I'm admitting that. Neither do YOU.


Sure I do - there have been no rabbit fossils found in the Pre Cambrian. As a creationist it really is in your best interest to know about as much of fossils as possible as it is the one source of falsification that is most probable to derail Evolution.
Omissions are NOT evidence Puck (even IF we allow fossils to be evidential)
The fact that I'm even ASKING you for evidence should be ringing alarm bells if you're even HALF the free thinker you suggest.

Talking of reasoning.. IF reason itself 'evolved' from nothing and doesn't 'know' where it is headed (ie there is no 'ultimate' reality) then WHY should we trust our OWN reason?

Evovlved from nothing? We have brains. They developed. The skill and accuracy of ones reasoning is based on the concepts you hold and the epistomolgy you engage in.


That doesn't address the issue though.. the brain evovled from nothing SO reason had to..

Nothing? Brains are *organic*, reason is a process using the capabilities of an *organic* brain.

If it is blindly going forward HOW can we trust it?

Trust what? Our brains? The processes that allow us to reason the concepts we hold and the epistomolgy we engage in does not change.

That STILL does not address the point.. YOU hold that the brain evolved from nothing (OK I'll allow a single cell organism) SO consciousness and reason therefore evolved from the same.. IF it is not heading somewhere, OR does not know where it is headed, which is to say an ultimate reality.. HOW can we trust our own reason at all?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 4:52:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/14/2009 4:52:43 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/11/2009 5:37:35 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/11/2009 3:08:39 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

There is a conspiracy against HUMANITY.. satan hates us because we are made in HIS image.. There is something else apart from dry facts Puck..

You mean non reality?
Is there such a thing? even a lie is a 'reality'.. a real lie.

A lie can be told. A lie cannot be also a non lie. Which just leaves us still with the facts of reality.

Hey.. I DON'T have evidence.. BUT I'm admitting that. Neither do YOU.


Sure I do - there have been no rabbit fossils found in the Pre Cambrian. As a creationist it really is in your best interest to know about as much of fossils as possible as it is the one source of falsification that is most probable to derail Evolution.
Omissions are NOT evidence Puck (even IF we allow fossils to be evidential)
The fact that I'm even ASKING you for evidence should be ringing alarm bells if you're even HALF the free thinker you suggest.

Evidence of fossils, google it. Evidence of evolution, read the links people provide. Then read some more. That you ask for evidence just tells me your level of understanding, nothing more.

Talking of reasoning.. IF reason itself 'evolved' from nothing and doesn't 'know' where it is headed (ie there is no 'ultimate' reality) then WHY should we trust our OWN reason?

Evovlved from nothing? We have brains. They developed. The skill and accuracy of ones reasoning is based on the concepts you hold and the epistomolgy you engage in.


That doesn't address the issue though.. the brain evovled from nothing SO reason had to..

Nothing? Brains are *organic*, reason is a process using the capabilities of an *organic* brain.

If it is blindly going forward HOW can we trust it?

Trust what? Our brains? The processes that allow us to reason the concepts we hold and the epistomolgy we engage in does not change.

That STILL does not address the point.. YOU hold that the brain evolved from nothing (OK I'll allow a single cell organism) SO consciousness and reason therefore evolved from the same.. IF it is not heading somewhere, OR does not know where it is headed, which is to say an ultimate reality.. HOW can we trust our own reason at all?

Reasoning is a an epistemic process. It is sound in as much as the manner in which it is engaged in. Our brains allow us to. That it evolved changes nothing, we have the capacity to - reality does not change at the whim of the mind.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 4:56:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 4/14/2009 4:52:52 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/14/2009 4:52:43 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/11/2009 5:37:35 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/11/2009 3:08:39 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

There is a conspiracy against HUMANITY.. satan hates us because we are made in HIS image.. There is something else apart from dry facts Puck..

You mean non reality?
Is there such a thing? even a lie is a 'reality'.. a real lie.

A lie can be told. A lie cannot be also a non lie. Which just leaves us still with the facts of reality.

Hey.. I DON'T have evidence.. BUT I'm admitting that. Neither do YOU.


Sure I do - there have been no rabbit fossils found in the Pre Cambrian. As a creationist it really is in your best interest to know about as much of fossils as possible as it is the one source of falsification that is most probable to derail Evolution.
Omissions are NOT evidence Puck (even IF we allow fossils to be evidential)
The fact that I'm even ASKING you for evidence should be ringing alarm bells if you're even HALF the free thinker you suggest.

Evidence of fossils, google it. Evidence of evolution, read the links people provide. Then read some more. That you ask for evidence just tells me your level of understanding, nothing more.

Talking of reasoning.. IF reason itself 'evolved' from nothing and doesn't 'know' where it is headed (ie there is no 'ultimate' reality) then WHY should we trust our OWN reason?

Evovlved from nothing? We have brains. They developed. The skill and accuracy of ones reasoning is based on the concepts you hold and the epistomolgy you engage in.


That doesn't address the issue though.. the brain evovled from nothing SO reason had to..

Nothing? Brains are *organic*, reason is a process using the capabilities of an *organic* brain.

If it is blindly going forward HOW can we trust it?

Trust what? Our brains? The processes that allow us to reason the concepts we hold and the epistomolgy we engage in does not change.

That STILL does not address the point.. YOU hold that the brain evolved from nothing (OK I'll allow a single cell organism) SO consciousness and reason therefore evolved from the same.. IF it is not heading somewhere, OR does not know where it is headed, which is to say an ultimate reality.. HOW can we trust our own reason at all?

Reasoning is a an epistemic process. It is sound in as much as the manner in which it is engaged in. Our brains allow us to. That it evolved changes nothing, we have the capacity to - reality does not change at the whim of the mind.


Evolution debate Puck?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 5:15:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/14/2009 4:56:33 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 4/14/2009 4:52:52 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/14/2009 4:52:43 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/11/2009 5:37:35 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/11/2009 3:08:39 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

There is a conspiracy against HUMANITY.. satan hates us because we are made in HIS image.. There is something else apart from dry facts Puck..

You mean non reality?
Is there such a thing? even a lie is a 'reality'.. a real lie.

A lie can be told. A lie cannot be also a non lie. Which just leaves us still with the facts of reality.

Hey.. I DON'T have evidence.. BUT I'm admitting that. Neither do YOU.


Sure I do - there have been no rabbit fossils found in the Pre Cambrian. As a creationist it really is in your best interest to know about as much of fossils as possible as it is the one source of falsification that is most probable to derail Evolution.
Omissions are NOT evidence Puck (even IF we allow fossils to be evidential)
The fact that I'm even ASKING you for evidence should be ringing alarm bells if you're even HALF the free thinker you suggest.

Evidence of fossils, google it. Evidence of evolution, read the links people provide. Then read some more. That you ask for evidence just tells me your level of understanding, nothing more.

Talking of reasoning.. IF reason itself 'evolved' from nothing and doesn't 'know' where it is headed (ie there is no 'ultimate' reality) then WHY should we trust our OWN reason?

Evovlved from nothing? We have brains. They developed. The skill and accuracy of ones reasoning is based on the concepts you hold and the epistomolgy you engage in.


That doesn't address the issue though.. the brain evovled from nothing SO reason had to..

Nothing? Brains are *organic*, reason is a process using the capabilities of an *organic* brain.

If it is blindly going forward HOW can we trust it?

Trust what? Our brains? The processes that allow us to reason the concepts we hold and the epistomolgy we engage in does not change.

That STILL does not address the point.. YOU hold that the brain evolved from nothing (OK I'll allow a single cell organism) SO consciousness and reason therefore evolved from the same.. IF it is not heading somewhere, OR does not know where it is headed, which is to say an ultimate reality.. HOW can we trust our own reason at all?

Reasoning is a an epistemic process. It is sound in as much as the manner in which it is engaged in. Our brains allow us to. That it evolved changes nothing, we have the capacity to - reality does not change at the whim of the mind.


Evolution debate Puck?

If you wish.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2009 12:56:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/14/2009 4:52:52 PM, Puck wrote:
Omissions are NOT evidence Puck (even IF we allow fossils to be evidential)
The fact that I'm even ASKING you for evidence should be ringing alarm bells if you're even HALF the free thinker you suggest.

Evidence of fossils, google it. Evidence of evolution, read the links people provide. Then read some more. That you ask for evidence just tells me your level of understanding, nothing more.
It shows your level of credulity.. you read all that stuff wanting, NEEDING to believe it..
That STILL does not address the point.. YOU hold that the brain evolved from nothing (OK I'll allow a single cell organism) SO consciousness and reason therefore evolved from the same.. IF it is not heading somewhere, OR does not know where it is headed, which is to say an ultimate reality.. HOW can we trust our own reason at all?

Reasoning is a an epistemic process. It is sound in as much as the manner in which it is engaged in. Our brains allow us to. That it evolved changes nothing, we have the capacity to - reality does not change at the whim of the mind.

So reality is objective and seperate from our own perspective? DOES 'it' know where WE are headed?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2009 3:44:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/15/2009 12:56:21 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/14/2009 4:52:52 PM, Puck wrote:
Omissions are NOT evidence Puck (even IF we allow fossils to be evidential)
The fact that I'm even ASKING you for evidence should be ringing alarm bells if you're even HALF the free thinker you suggest.

Evidence of fossils, google it. Evidence of evolution, read the links people provide. Then read some more. That you ask for evidence just tells me your level of understanding, nothing more.
It shows your level of credulity.. you read all that stuff wanting, NEEDING to believe it..

Nice try but no - as already stated I have no special ties to it - if it was falsified then that's ok. Which makes only myself the one looking at the evidence - you continuing to engage in confirmation bias. My reasoning is sound - yours is not.

That STILL does not address the point.. YOU hold that the brain evolved from nothing (OK I'll allow a single cell organism) SO consciousness and reason therefore evolved from the same.. IF it is not heading somewhere, OR does not know where it is headed, which is to say an ultimate reality.. HOW can we trust our own reason at all?

Reasoning is a an epistemic process. It is sound in as much as the manner in which it is engaged in. Our brains allow us to. That it evolved changes nothing, we have the capacity to - reality does not change at the whim of the mind.

So reality is objective and seperate from our own perspective? DOES 'it' know where WE are headed?

Only seperate if we don't hold the correct perception of it. Is the universe sentient, no.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2009 12:44:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/15/2009 3:44:13 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/15/2009 12:56:21 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/14/2009 4:52:52 PM, Puck wrote:
Omissions are NOT evidence Puck (even IF we allow fossils to be evidential)
The fact that I'm even ASKING you for evidence should be ringing alarm bells if you're even HALF the free thinker you suggest.

Evidence of fossils, google it. Evidence of evolution, read the links people provide. Then read some more. That you ask for evidence just tells me your level of understanding, nothing more.
It shows your level of credulity.. you read all that stuff wanting, NEEDING to believe it..

Nice try but no - as already stated I have no special ties to it - if it was falsified then that's ok. Which makes only myself the one looking at the evidence - you continuing to engage in confirmation bias. My reasoning is sound - yours is not.
How can you believe in macro evolution without any evidence? EVEN if the've changed the theory not to need it!!!

That STILL does not address the point.. YOU hold that the brain evolved from nothing (OK I'll allow a single cell organism) SO consciousness and reason therefore evolved from the same.. IF it is not heading somewhere, OR does not know where it is headed, which is to say an ultimate reality.. HOW can we trust our own reason at all?

Reasoning is a an epistemic process. It is sound in as much as the manner in which it is engaged in. Our brains allow us to. That it evolved changes nothing, we have the capacity to - reality does not change at the whim of the mind.

So reality is objective and seperate from our own perspective? DOES 'it' know where WE are headed?

Only seperate if we don't hold the correct perception of it. Is the universe sentient, no.

Who judges who's perception is correct or not?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2009 1:59:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/17/2009 12:44:40 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/15/2009 3:44:13 PM, Puck wrote:
At 4/15/2009 12:56:21 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/14/2009 4:52:52 PM, Puck wrote:
Omissions are NOT evidence Puck (even IF we allow fossils to be evidential)
The fact that I'm even ASKING you for evidence should be ringing alarm bells if you're even HALF the free thinker you suggest.

Evidence of fossils, google it. Evidence of evolution, read the links people provide. Then read some more. That you ask for evidence just tells me your level of understanding, nothing more.
It shows your level of credulity.. you read all that stuff wanting, NEEDING to believe it..

Nice try but no - as already stated I have no special ties to it - if it was falsified then that's ok. Which makes only myself the one looking at the evidence - you continuing to engage in confirmation bias. My reasoning is sound - yours is not.

How can you believe in macro evolution without any evidence? EVEN if the've changed the theory not to need it!!!

You have been provided multiple times with links detailing evidence.

That STILL does not address the point.. YOU hold that the brain evolved from nothing (OK I'll allow a single cell organism) SO consciousness and reason therefore evolved from the same.. IF it is not heading somewhere, OR does not know where it is headed, which is to say an ultimate reality.. HOW can we trust our own reason at all?

Reasoning is a an epistemic process. It is sound in as much as the manner in which it is engaged in. Our brains allow us to. That it evolved changes nothing, we have the capacity to - reality does not change at the whim of the mind.

So reality is objective and seperate from our own perspective? DOES 'it' know where WE are headed?

Only seperate if we don't hold the correct perception of it. Is the universe sentient, no.

Who judges [whose] perception is correct or not?

That is a purpose of reasoning.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 5:13:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/17/2009 1:59:34 PM, Puck wrote:

How can you believe in macro evolution without any evidence? EVEN if the've changed the theory not to need it!!!

You have been provided multiple times with links detailing evidence.
OK.. let us assume that I am as completely befuddled as you seem to imagine and let us also assume that you have as good an understanding of evolution theory as you pretend..
THEN.. could you please simplify ONE piece of evidence that points to macro evolution?
Who judges [whose] perception is correct or not?

That is a purpose of reasoning.

So.. reason reasons reason?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2009 5:34:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 5:13:41 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/17/2009 1:59:34 PM, Puck wrote:

How can you believe in macro evolution without any evidence? EVEN if the've changed the theory not to need it!!!

You have been provided multiple times with links detailing evidence.
OK.. let us assume that I am as completely befuddled as you seem to imagine and let us also assume that you have as good an understanding of evolution theory as you pretend..
THEN.. could you please simplify ONE piece of evidence that points to macro evolution?

Read this thread, click on links I provided detailing evidence of, read.

Who judges [whose] perception is correct or not?

That is a purpose of reasoning.

So.. reason reasons reason?

You asked about obtaining validity of perception. That was the answer. Perception is the integration of sensations. Reasoning in part is the process of validating that information and integrating it with current knowledge.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2009 2:42:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/18/2009 5:34:32 AM, Puck wrote:
At 4/18/2009 5:13:41 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/17/2009 1:59:34 PM, Puck wrote:

How can you believe in macro evolution without any evidence? EVEN if the've changed the theory not to need it!!!

You have been provided multiple times with links detailing evidence.
OK.. let us assume that I am as completely befuddled as you seem to imagine and let us also assume that you have as good an understanding of evolution theory as you pretend..
THEN.. could you please simplify ONE piece of evidence that points to macro evolution?

Read this thread, click on links I provided detailing evidence of, read.
Meaning you havn't GOT one.


Who judges [whose] perception is correct or not?

That is a purpose of reasoning.

So.. reason reasons reason?

You asked about obtaining validity of perception. That was the answer. Perception is the integration of sensations. Reasoning in part is the process of validating that information and integrating it with current knowledge.

Right. SO you are in effect suggesting that reason has to judge itself.. That does NOT make sense puck.

ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death BUT the free gift from God is ETERNAL life in Christ Jesus..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2009 3:38:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/20/2009 2:42:15 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/18/2009 5:34:32 AM, Puck wrote:
At 4/18/2009 5:13:41 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 4/17/2009 1:59:34 PM, Puck wrote:

How can you believe in macro evolution without any evidence? EVEN if the've changed the theory not to need it!!!

You have been provided multiple times with links detailing evidence.
OK.. let us assume that I am as completely befuddled as you seem to imagine and let us also assume that you have as good an understanding of evolution theory as you pretend..
THEN.. could you please simplify ONE piece of evidence that points to macro evolution?

Read this thread, click on links I provided detailing evidence of, read.
Meaning you havn't GOT one.

Incorrect. Meaning I have no desire to hold your hand. If you have no desire to learn, it does not matter where the information is.

Who judges [whose] perception is correct or not?

That is a purpose of reasoning.

So.. reason reasons reason?

You asked about obtaining validity of perception. That was the answer. Perception is the integration of sensations. Reasoning in part is the process of validating that information and integrating it with current knowledge.

Right. SO you are in effect suggesting that reason has to judge itself.. That does NOT make sense puck.

Perception is not reason. A is A.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2009 7:01:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/20/2009 3:38:36 PM, Puck wrote:

Read this thread, click on links I provided detailing evidence of, read.
Meaning you havn't GOT one.

Incorrect. Meaning I have no desire to hold your hand. If you have no desire to learn, it does not matter where the information is.
Just ONE? Just your BEST piece of evidence?

Who judges [whose] perception is correct or not?

That is a purpose of reasoning.

So.. reason reasons reason?

You asked about obtaining validity of perception. That was the answer. Perception is the integration of sensations. Reasoning in part is the process of validating that information and integrating it with current knowledge.

Right. SO you are in effect suggesting that reason has to judge itself.. That does NOT make sense puck.

Perception is not reason. A is A.
So is A something that has always existed or is evolving or what?

ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death BUT the free gift from God is ETERNAL life in Christ Jesus..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2009 8:57:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/22/2009 7:01:19 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

So is A something that has always existed or is evolving or what?


Perception is a biological basis of sensory collection. Reason is a biologically based (i.e. we use our brains) method of evaluation. A is A relates to the Law of identity - as already stated our minds do not change reality - this is why you trying to state, a biological basis cannot be trusted, is a moot argument.