|
Braavos36375 Posts
On April 19 2007 19:46 XelNaga wrote:
Really eh? Tell me. If we didn't have free will (Which is what you were getting at with the first comment) why did God give Adam and Eve the choice of eating the fruit or not? Seems to me that he could have avoided a loooooot of problems but taking away the choice?
this question is basically like:
"does your mother know that you are stupid?"
|
On April 19 2007 20:00 Hot_Bid wrote:
this question is basically like:
"does your mother know that you are stupid?"
No, this question is like.
If we don't have free will (as in, it's only an illusion.. A Hobsons choice) then why would God give us the choice in the Garden of Eden?
On April 19 2007 19:50 yisun518 wrote:
in christian religion, you get to go to heaven or hell after life :x
a bit different in other religions.
and without religion, you go nowhere. perhaps to an unknown dimension outside your skull.
p.s. i see lots of logical phallacies in this thread. i probably made some phallacies as well, cant be perfect unless study philosophy fulltime, even then, philosophers often make phallacies.....
Yeah, but we aren't talking in other religions, nor do I believe any other religion is true (How bigoted of me). Atheism in this sense doesn't leave room for an "after life", once you're dead, you're dead.
|
XelNaga you still haven't responded to my last post, how the hell did it have anything to do with philosophy?
|
Australia3818 Posts
On April 19 2007 19:57 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 19:56 Smurg wrote:Dude let's stop talking about all this shit. Why do we even care? We have our own beliefs, leave it as that. You believe in God, I believe in nothing so let me be with my beliefs. Everyone stfu and gtfo.  I was ready to stop posting a few dozen pages back, I don't know why everyone kept going with it.
Why don't you just stop then?
It doesn't mean you 'lose' morally or argument wise.
There is nothing to prove, I guess it's smarter to stop.
|
@xelnage, regarding intelligent design argued by theologians.
one of the first fundamental problem with argument by design can be easily found through comparison.
we create cellphones, computers, sophisticated things.
all intelligent beings are complicated,
then they must have been designed.
since we are intelligent beings, we must have been designed, by ... god!
well, we design for reasons, to learn, to entertain ourselves, to discover, to help ourselves etc.
then by argument of comparison (the very logic used for intelligent design) God created us to learn, entertain himself, to discover, and help himself.
Wait a sec, God is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-being entity.... He does not need to learn, to discover, and he definitely doesnt need help. And to entertain himself? He is all knowing, and all being, he knows and experience everything simultaneously, whats left to entertain him? We play games and sports not knowing the result, when he knows the results of everything, knowing he will create humans and knowing humans will betray him, how is he getting entertained?
And the 2nd fatal comparison is, humans make mistakes in designs. GOD does not, yet created humans, who have flaws. A clear imcompatibility in the comparison argument.
Therefore, the very technique used for argument of design can be used to reveal logical flaws in the reasoning.
And a side note, that sounds like a pretty sadistic GOd to me knowing his creation will betray him.
I would like to keep using philosophical methodologies, and refrain from logical phallacies, i compare apple to apples. If i made any phallacies or illogical arguments, plz do point out. I want to make this an constructive environment.
|
On April 19 2007 20:05 HumbleZealot wrote:
XelNaga you still haven't responded to my last post, how the hell did it have anything to do with philosophy?
When you said you it was going to start getting into "deep shit". By deep I thought you had meant a more heady topic (like philosophy) and not you telling me I was going to get insulted (Which I already am). It was a mis read on my part.
On April 19 2007 20:05 Smurg wrote:
Why don't you just stop then?
It doesn't mean you 'lose' morally or argument wise.
There is nothing to prove, I guess it's smarter to stop.
I had stopped, I only started against recently because I was bored? And yeah, it was probably a better idea to have just stopped when I did.
|
On April 19 2007 20:06 yisun518 wrote:
intelligent design argued by theologens.
one of the first fundamental problem with argument by design can be easily found through comparison.
we create cellphones, computers, sophisticated things.
all intelligent beings are complicated,
then they must have been designed.
since we are intelligent beings, we must have been designed, by ... god!
This isn't a stance taken by theologians* It's a detractive argument poised by evolutionists in argument against the existence of God. Intelligent design, as I understand it, believes in a creator because... Of the Genesis creation account, not because of sophistication as you've postulated. Where sophistication does come in is later where it seems absurd to think that everything randomly evolved instead of being created.
They aren't using sophistication as you have said "It's complicated so it must have been created" It's a dead end argument with too many logical fallacies.
On April 19 2007 20:06 yisun518 wrote:
well, we design for reasons, to learn, to entertain ourselves, to discover, to help ourselves etc.
then by argument of comparison (the very logic used for intelligent design) God created us to learn, entertain himself, to discover, and help himself.
Really eh? I didn't realize that humankind thought exactly the same way God did! Which, would be the fallacy of this stance. How can a man understand the mind of God? (Don't make me quote the scripture). God created us.. for his pleasure. He didn't have to, he's God, but he did anyway. He didn't need us to discover, he didn't need us to learn and he didn't need us to help him.
Our minds are no where near the mind of God, two completely different things. Assuming our minds are the same as God's just because he created us doesn't really make sense?
On April 19 2007 20:06 yisun518 wrote:
Wait a sec, God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-being entity.... He does not need to learn, to discover, and he definitely doesnt need help. And to entertain himself? He is all knowing, and all being, he knows and experience everything simultaneously, whats left to entertain him? We play cards and sports not knowing the result, when he knows the results of everything, knowing he will create humans and knowing humans will betray him, how is he getting entertained?
This entire postulation is based on the fallacy contained within your last point made. As such, this is also wrong in its assumptions.
On April 19 2007 20:06 yisun518 wrote:
And a side note, that sounds like a pretty slave-driving sadistic GOd to me knowing his creation will betray him.
Do parents have children knowing their children will disobey them? So do they just avoid it altogether? Or do they have children anyway?
On April 19 2007 20:06 yisun518 wrote:
I would like to keep using philosophical methodologies, and refrain from logical phallacies, i compare apple to apples. If i made any phallacies or illogical arguments, plz do point out. I want to make this an constructive environment.
I'd just like to say sorry for the double posting. I'm used to a forum where you can edit/delete posts ;\
On April 19 2007 20:06 yisun518 wrote:
And the 2nd fatal comparison is, humans make mistakes in designs. GOD does not, yet created humans, who have flaws. A clear imcompatibility in the comparison argument.
No? When God created everything it was perfect.
|
|
|
Ok, firstly, this is a really big waste of time and I don't know why I'm doing this. I can't get angry every time someone slanders science by saying that it's a religion, or that it's as dogmatic as religion is, because I'd just spend my life being angry. I guess the only good that come come from this is to convince someone reading it, but I think most people would have given up on that after the first few pages.
On April 19 2007 08:32 XelNaga wrote:
Sure you are, your first leap of faith is that you don't believe in God. Science obviously hasn't disproven the possibility. So yes, you are taking a leap of faith in assuming God doesn't exist.
Are we to say that it's a leap of faith to not believe in Zeus or Russell's celestial teapot? Science obviously hasn't disproven the possibility. So yes, you are taking a leap of faith in assuming Zeus doesn't exist.
On April 19 2007 08:32 XelNaga wrote:
Can you prove it beyond a doubt? Is it something that's repeatable? Were you there to observe and record it?
Yes, evolution is proved beyond a doubt in the same way that gravity is proved beyond a doubt. Experiments that have been done on evolution are repeatable. You don't have to be there to observe and record it in the same way that a detective doesn't have to be there to observe a crime to eventually find out who did it.
On April 19 2007 08:32 XelNaga wrote:
Are you telling me that I'm a brainwashed "sheep", but you went and said "Science says it's true, so it must be", does that not sound a bit odd to you? Assumption --> faith that the assumption is correct. Because if the assumption isn't the theory could possibly crumble. You are taking a leap of faith, don't deny it.
It's a lot more reliable when science says something is true because of the intense peer review process of new developments in it. If someone makes a claim in the scientific world, other researchers all around the world will repeat their experiments and often arrive at the same conclusion. The results of subsequent, seemingly unrelated experiments will also often have implications that confirm the claim. Only when such a large consensus has been established will it be taught in science classrooms, and we trust this consensus because they've generally been correct in the past.
The 'assumption' that natural phenomena have natural explanations seems a lot more reasonable than the assumption that God created everything.
On April 19 2007 18:17 XelNaga wrote:
How could Noah build an ark!!!
BUT WE EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELL!!!!
Yeah, come on buddy haha...
Each of us grows from a single cell in 9 months, is that really so much easier to believe?
If a scientist ever comes across as being too angry in a debate like this, it's probably because he's spent his entire life's work doing experiments and collecting data on evolution, analyzing the data, painstaking repeating the experiments over and over again to make sure of their reliability, all the while unrewarded but persisting because of his passion in the pursuit of truth, then having someone say something like this.
|
well then plz tell me then, whats your version of the argument of intelligent design? what logical reasoning do you use to support intelligent design?
yes, all my arguments were based on theologians's stance that intelligent design being supported by comparative argument. unless you could point me in the right direction, what else is the argument of design.
you commited some phallacies too, God is all knowing, parents are not.
I am not against creationism, but not the God portrait by christianity.
Any advanced species with space travel technology can come over and speed up evolution (yes, assuming evolution exists, or you can call it random-chemical-change + natural selection)
I am only trying to show some of the illogical parts about beliefs in OMNIGOD
|
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote:
well then plz tell me then, whats your version of the argument of intelligent design? what logical reasoning do you use to support intelligent design?
Very simply put? The Genesis account says so (seriously)
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote:
yes, all my arguments were based on theologians's stance that intelligent design being supported by comparative argument. unless you could point me in the right direction, what else is the argument of design.
Is the creator (in this case anything) really going to create something as intelligent or smarter than itself? No, but that's what you're arguing.
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote:
you commited some phallacies too, God is all knowing, parents are not.
It was a comparison. Parents know 100% their children will in one way or another rebel against them. That was the comparison, good job ignoring it.
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote:
I am not against creationism, but not the God portrait by christianity.
Any advanced species with space travel technology can come over and speed up evolution (yes, assuming evolution exists, or you can call it random-chemical-change + natural selection)
Why would they do that? Evolution isn't true. By the way, "aliens" don't disagree with any biblical teaching.
On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote:
I am only trying to show some of the illogical parts about beliefs in OMNIGOD
Really eh? Almost as illogical as your points eh?
On April 19 2007 20:20 Wonders wrote:
Yes, evolution is proved beyond a doubt in the same way that gravity is proved beyond a doubt. Experiments that have been done on evolution are repeatable. You don't have to be there to observe and record it in the same way that a detective doesn't have to be there to observe a crime to eventually find out who did it.
I was going to reply until I read this, are you serious?
On April 19 2007 20:20 Wonders wrote:
Each of us grows from a single cell in 9 months, is that really so much easier to believe?
Yes, because that's a guided process; intelligent design. It isn't a mistake laden venture.
|
On April 19 2007 20:20 Wonders wrote:Ok, firstly, this is a really waste of time and I don't know why I'm doing this. I can't get angry every time someone slanders science by saying that it's a religion, or that it's as dogmatic as religion is, because I'd just spend my life being angry. I guess the only good that come come from this is to convince someone reading it, but I think most people would have given up on that after the first few pages. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 08:32 XelNaga wrote:
Sure you are, your first leap of faith is that you don't believe in God. Science obviously hasn't disproven the possibility. So yes, you are taking a leap of faith in assuming God doesn't exist.
Are we to say that it's a leap of faith to not believe in Zeus or Russell's celestial teapot? Science obviously hasn't disproven the possibility. So yes, you are taking a leap of faith in assuming Zeus doesn't exist. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 08:32 XelNaga wrote:
Can you prove it beyond a doubt? Is it something that's repeatable? Were you there to observe and record it?
Yes, evolution is proved beyond a doubt in the same way that gravity is proved beyond a doubt. Experiments that have been done on evolution are repeatable. You don't have to be there to observe and record it in the same way that a detective doesn't have to be there to observe a crime to eventually find out who did it. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 08:32 XelNaga wrote:
Are you telling me that I'm a brainwashed "sheep", but you went and said "Science says it's true, so it must be", does that not sound a bit odd to you? Assumption --> faith that the assumption is correct. Because if the assumption isn't the theory could possibly crumble. You are taking a leap of faith, don't deny it.
It's a lot more reliable when science says something is true because of the intense peer review process of new developments in it. If someone makes a claim in the scientific world, other researchers all around the world will repeat their experiments and often arrive at the same conclusion. The results of subsequent, seemingly unrelated experiments will also often have implications that confirm the claim. Only when such a large consensus has been established will it be taught in science classrooms, and we trust this consensus because they've generally been correct in the past. The 'assumption' that natural phenomena have natural explanations seems a lot more reasonable than the assumption that God created everything. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 18:17 XelNaga wrote:
How could Noah build an ark!!!
BUT WE EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELL!!!!
Yeah, come on buddy haha... Each of us grows from a single cell in 9 months, is that really so much easier to believe? If a scientist ever comes across as being too angry in a debate like this, it's probably because he's spent his entire life's work doing experiments and collecting data on evolution, analyzing the data, painstaking repeating the experiments over and over again to make sure of their reliability, all the while unrewarded but persisting because of his passion in the pursuit of truth, then having someone say something like this.
Your right, you were better off not posting.
Using phrases like
"It's a lot more reliable"
Its a lot more reliable? Shouldn't you be saying, "Its the most reliable?" Though you didn't because its only more* reliable for you, not the most* reliable. You could always change what you originally said to better aid your cause.
"and often arrive at the same conclusion."
So what about all the scientists that don't come to the same conclusion? You have more faith in the majority than the minority.
|
On April 19 2007 20:25 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote:
well then plz tell me then, whats your version of the argument of intelligent design? what logical reasoning do you use to support intelligent design? Very simply put? The Genesis account says so (seriously) Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote:
yes, all my arguments were based on theologians's stance that intelligent design being supported by comparative argument. unless you could point me in the right direction, what else is the argument of design. Is the creator (in this case anything) really going to create something as intelligent or smarter than itself? No, but that's what you're arguing. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote:
you commited some phallacies too, God is all knowing, parents are not. It was a comparison. Parents know 100% their children will in one way or another rebel against them. That was the comparison, good job ignoring it. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote:
I am not against creationism, but not the God portrait by christianity.
Any advanced species with space travel technology can come over and speed up evolution (yes, assuming evolution exists, or you can call it random-chemical-change + natural selection) Why would they do that? Evolution isn't true. By the way, "aliens" don't disagree with any biblical teaching. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:22 yisun518 wrote:
I am only trying to show some of the illogical parts about beliefs in OMNIGOD Really eh? Almost as illogical as your points eh?
too much phallacies...
there are serious problems with reasoning such as "Very simply put? The Genesis account says so (seriously)"
if something else says so, you would just believe it? based on the fact that it just said so? I do not think our judical system works like this.
evolution isnt true? its one story to find supporting details to prove something, its another thing trying to disprove something. There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
If you believe something b/c it just says so, then you can equally believe in Zeus, Aliens speeding up human's evolution by modifying genes, etc. There is not enough evidence to support extraterrastrial aid in our evolution though, and it remains a theory for now, and its certainly within doubts.
It is very illogical to believe in something beyond doubt JUST B/C IT SAYS SO. And that's not how our system work today.
|
Saying it's the MOST reliable doesn't have much of a meaning, the MOST reliable would probably be what maths or logic says is true.
When many of the researchers don't come to the same conclusion, then the claim is invalidated and it isn't taught as science.
|
On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote:
too much phallacies...
there are serious problems with reasoning such as "Very simply put? The Genesis account says so (seriously)"
if something else says so, you would just believe it? based on the fact that it just said so? I do not think our judical system works like this.
You asked for why I believed it, that's why, got a problem with it, start disproving my bible  Good luck, they haven't in hundreds of years of trying. The reliability of the bible speaks for itself. Well, that and when I studied evolution and the big bang theorem It just didn't work out for me.
On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote:
evolution isnt true? its one story to find supporting details to prove something, its another thing trying to disprove something. There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
Like I said, I have got no problem with micro evolution, it's macro evolution I have a problem with. I must admit...
2-0 for evolution
Without Piltdown man and Nebraska man.. We'd be screwed. Tampering with your own fossils to create missing links.. Interesting approach!
On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote:
If you believe something b/c it just says so, then you can equally believe in Zeus, Aliens speeding up human's evolution by modifying genes, etc. There is not enough evidence to support extraterrastrial aid in our evolution though, and it remains a theory for now, and its certainly within doubts.
Assuming I believe something just because it says so, a wrong assumption, by the way. As for extraterrestrials? I don't care, like I said, it wouldn't cause a conflict within Christianity.
On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote:
It is very illogical to believe in something beyond doubt JUST B/C IT SAYS SO. And that's not how our system work today.
No it's not. Most of you believe in evolution simply because that's what you've been taught, you never questioned it.
Come now bud, prove my book wrong.
Prove 1 verse wrong.
|
testpat
United States565 Posts
On April 19 2007 19:29 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote:
Wow, you are a dense person. An amazingly dense person. An amazingly dense person who hasn't even read the biblical passage, even though we've been discussing this for two days. They are on the ark for more than a few months, the ark has 3 levels, lighting is necessary. These are in your expertise - the bible. Hi, nice to meet you. I'm XelNaga, have we met before? I'm not sure, but we're meeting now. Just to make sure we are on the same page.
I'm testpat, I'll be your guide through the wonderful fairy tale of the ark. There's more questions than in this post. This is just me stating that they feed, the animals poop is not a sufficient argument.
Noah's Ark was taller than a 3-story building and had a deck area the size of 36 lawn tennis courts. Its length was 300 cubits (450 feet, or 135 meters); its width was 50 cubits (75 feet, or 22.5 meters); it had three stories and its height was 30 cubits (45 feet, or 13.5 meters). http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
This makes it longer than any wooden boat ever made. Four times as large as any thing built during the age. Wooden boats that even approach 70% of this size require steel support bars (and steel doesn't exist pre bronze age), and require constant pumping due to constant leaking. They cannot sail in deep ocean because of the waves. Since there is no land to stop waves, i wonder if this might cause a problem.
I don't think lighting is so much a problem, probably had... Windows?
Well thought out for 1): there are windows 18 inches from the top of the ark (its listed in the bible - those were freebies) & 2) for the bottom two decks, which are in a boat sailing the seasea and likely, at any minute, to be underwater. Windows are likely not to be an option.
So now that we've gotten the dimensions of the ark out of the way, lets talk about some more of it. I really haven't been following what you and Annor have been saying, because frankly this topic has gone absurdly out of hand. But, I figure the guy started posting because of me, so I'll post in his stead as well. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote:
Other than Feed, clean poop, disperse animals, I'm missing where you've expanded on this well thought out plan for caring for the animals. Other than stating you believe in Evolution, cause there were no polar bears before the ark, I'm not sure what further data you've provided. For that matter, I don't see a post after my post that futher illuminates your thoughts an the myriad of problems i outlined. First of all feeding. Animals can survive on plant diets, that's no issue. Animals that can hibernate, probably did hibernate, that's not an issue. Cleaning up after them? Not a big issue, once again they are on an ocean, they can toss everything over board. Especially considering that birds, hibernating animals and insects don't really create that much waste.
Not all animals can survive on plants, some animals have to eat multiple times per day. Animals that hibernate need specific requirements (dens) for their hibernation. Two of the decks are underwater - all things need to be carried up. Water vapor (from breath) with 100% humidity (that what happens during rain) means that this must also be carried up. Methane builds up in the lower levels. Food cannot just be scattered about - it has to be sealed - otherwise, certain insect populations would expand dramatically in the time period (you do realize that some of these animals have lifespans less than the time on the ark). Birds have a very high metabolism, eating around 20% of their weight, and drinking 10% of their weight in water per day.
Moving along, with the hole polar bear, penguin argument, we run into a problem. The basic assumption from everyone here is that the world in Noah's day resembled the world today. Which, it didn't. It's referred to as the "pre-flood" world. Probably meaning that earths temperatures were uniform throughout. Meaning that micro evolution (adaption) took place within species, something that doesn't disagree with the bible.
Problem now is simple - you don't get polar bears from your bear species with a genetic diversity of two animals. Two animals create near clones over time. You don't have the time for micro evolution to create these species. If the ark happened, you should find fossils in one part of the earth (after the flood), generally spreading across the rest of the world as its repopulated. Most islands should have populations of zero.
Other than that, all you need to do is tell me what creatures are on the ark.
Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote:
From the new information of where you pulled 58,000 from, I'm guessing invertebrates are made later by god pulling out the skeletons, since they aren't on the ark. I'm guessing insects must be imaginary - because they are all dead if they aren't on the ark. I'm guessing that your concept of animal hasn't really considered that all other life is wiped out - and therefore everything needs to be on the ark. That's why your 58,000 number is really just silly. Why is it that every additional postulate you make, and the support for it, makes your ark look less planned out? Interesting question... Invertebrates. Read this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.aspIt explains what Noah took, how many.. Invertebrates, you get the idea? Basically, once again the logical fallacy is that the species we have today all existed in Noahs time. Assuming that the climate of Noah's day was uniform this wouldn't be the case, after the flood there would be a need for adaption, but not so much before. There were less animals; micro evolution. It's a divided topic over what Noah took
Here's a review of the book- pointing out problems. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html. But I am really glad that you actually looked up something. It also discussion problem "less animals" & micro evolution on this to create our current genetic diversity. Btw, there is no detail in the fossil record showing an explosion of life forms 8 to 10k years ago. Go figure. You'd also figure that if the specization occured in the 10,000 years from 2 parents, we'd find that all species have common a common "super species" 10k years ago. And finally, since God made adam name all the animals and give dominion over them, but now we have new animals - does man have dominion over those?
Can't you read it yourself? See if you opened to the chapter of the Bible and read what it said, I wouldn't have to explain a thing.
Over a year..
[/Quote]
That's what I read too, so they store food for 2-3 years (earth will be barren when they land) - crops & trees are dead. During this time, not a single animal dies, other than those with lifespans less than 1 year , these mate, and properly kill themselves to maintain the necessary food.
Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote:
Finally, another well thought out article of how they repopulate "Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.." So your argument is "it sounds easier than evolution, it must be true. For you to make this argument means you believe in evolution correct? Otherwise its complete nonsense. I think this was more an observation, a correct one at that lol. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote:
Even if you do believe in evolution, your logic doesn't follow. Evolution is not the origin of life, its the changing characteristics of large populations over time. There is no evolutionary change in populations of zero. If you just mistook origin of life for evolution with your normal sloppy thinking. I would state that in the time periods involved < 10k years, the earth could not be populated with its current genetic diversity if the first signs of life occurred 10k years ago. Hmm.. I wonder how the sexes evolved.. Anyone explain?
Its not a proper observation. Did you read the text? Its right above. Evolution does not occur in population sizes of 0.
Problems with evolution do not prove that populations can expand from 1 male & female. All evidence shows this is not a viable species population. Problems with evolution do not make this go away. Throwing sand in the eyes of your opponent is not a logical argument - its a rhetorical one.
Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote:
I would further state that given a set of species, numbering 2 in each case, that the genetic diversity we see today would not be possible, in addition, most species would die out because of lack of diversity in the genes of the original population. Conservation biologists estimate a minimum size of fifty for a species's survival, with 150 or more being a more realistic figure. How about .... honey bees? you do realize that 2 bees cannot create a colony, certain plants can't pollinate without bees. Oh yeah? Enjoying the speculation ^^ Bees didn't breathe through their nostrils by the way, God took care of those. You accuse Annor of not reading scripture and you've made the same mistake..
[/Quote]
I would have rather enjoyed you describing how you get the diversity from two animals, how fatal viruses that can only exist in hosts can exist since either 1) they killed the animal on the ark, or 2) they were wiped out. But I think that I'll just file that under the complete lack of explanation for how any of the details of the ark were dealt with. With the exception of the well fleshed out description of microevolution, how it happened, what support for it, and how it explains the host of related problems.
Nostrils? you mean as in
22:All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
You sure that bees don't fall into
21:And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
or
23:And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Because, if it did, i would probably take the fact that you missed the windows in the ark, even though you pull the dimensions, and the "breath of life", for the fact that you read only for what supports you. I would never accuse you of not reading the scripture though .
|
On April 19 2007 20:35 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote:
too much phallacies...
there are serious problems with reasoning such as "Very simply put? The Genesis account says so (seriously)"
if something else says so, you would just believe it? based on the fact that it just said so? I do not think our judical system works like this. You asked for why I believed it, that's why, got a problem with it, start disproving my bible Good luck, they haven't in hundreds of years of trying. The reliability of the bible speaks for itself. Well, that and when I studied evolution and the big bang theorem It just didn't work out for me. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote:
evolution isnt true? its one story to find supporting details to prove something, its another thing trying to disprove something. There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt. Like I said, I have got no problem with micro evolution, it's macro evolution I have a problem with. I must admit... 2-0 for evolution Without Piltdown man and Nebraska man.. We'd be screwed. Tampering with your own fossils to create missing links.. Interesting approach! Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote:
If you believe something b/c it just says so, then you can equally believe in Zeus, Aliens speeding up human's evolution by modifying genes, etc. There is not enough evidence to support extraterrastrial aid in our evolution though, and it remains a theory for now, and its certainly within doubts. Assuming I believe something just because it says so, a wrong assumption, by the way. As for extraterrestrials? I don't care, like I said, it wouldn't cause a conflict within Christianity. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:31 yisun518 wrote:
It is very illogical to believe in something beyond doubt JUST B/C IT SAYS SO. And that's not how our system work today. No it's not. Most of you believe in evolution simply because that's what you've been taught, you never questioned it. Come now bud, prove my book wrong. Prove 1 verse wrong.
This is not constructive argument... It's pretty much, i dont know jack, and you dont know jack either argument...
When we are taught something in Science, some retards can just memorize it, but many question it, thats why Science is ever evolving and self-correcting.
|
On April 19 2007 20:39 yisun518 wrote:
This is not constructive argument... It's pretty much, i dont know jack, and you dont know jack either argument...
When we are taught something in Science, some retards can just memorize it, but many question it, thats why Science is ever evolving and self-correcting.
Oh yeah? What an odd argument...
Question it eh? Yeah.. I was one of those people that questioned and didn't get any answers. Still waiting for you to disprove 1 line of the bible thank you.
|
On April 19 2007 20:41 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:39 yisun518 wrote:
This is not constructive argument... It's pretty much, i dont know jack, and you dont know jack either argument...
When we are taught something in Science, some retards can just memorize it, but many question it, thats why Science is ever evolving and self-correcting. Oh yeah? What an odd argument... Question it eh? Yeah.. I was one of those people that questioned and didn't get any answers. Still waiting for you to disprove 1 line of the bible thank you.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt. I tried to avoid attacking you personally, but now i have to say, you need to understand how philosophy and logical reasoning works.
quoting myself
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
|
On April 19 2007 20:44 yisun518 wrote:
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
Oh yeah? And still, you must choose which side to believe ^^ I'll believe mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
