Somehow,somewhere,somewhen

[Subduction Zone]

This just shows your misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of Christianity.

Wrong. It shows that you could not provide the context for your verse.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

Really?

Your repeating of ad hominem statements and no supported reason to counter my claims is no way of debating.

It seems that you don't know the meaning of ad hominem either. Go back and read the posts again.

I beg to differ.

So you are saying that dad cannot be taught? Perhaps you are right.

I haven't spoken to any on here.

The internet is much bigger than this one forum.




Prove it. Don't accuse me of quote mining, I always include the link so that you can read the quote in the whole context of the article.

Opinion and nothing more.

Wrong. And you are adding support to my claim with each and every recent post of yours.

You need to learn the difference between opinion and facts based upon experience.

Opinion and nothing more.

You could not be more wrong.

Seriously, there is no doubt that we evolved. Even ID advocates like Michael Behe agree that we evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uncomfortable? You seem to be a little over confrontational to think that it is so laughable.

Wrong, the fact that you will not drop your nonsense is why it is good for a laugh or two.

Here is a hint, when pushing nonsense you should tread lightly.

 

[Skaloop]

Look at the examples I gave Skaloop.

What, the images? The attempts to visually represent the expansion of the universe in a way that we can understand? How are they anything like tents?

 

[Loudmouth]

My argument was that the fine tuning was shown to be real and not perceived by me like bunny clouds. I posted the consensus of physicists and cosmologists and asked if they were seeing bunny clouds in their perception. That was the discussion.

Ultimately, they are drawing the Bull's Eye around the bullet hole. They are calculating the odds of a specific person winning the lottery after they have already won the lottery. They are calculating the improbability of a 52 card hand after the 52 card hand has been dealt. That is the ultimate weakness of the anthropic principle, it put's the cart in front of the horse.

How many people are around in universes incapable of producing people? None. Do you understand the inherent bias?

 

[EternalDragon]

Ultimately, they are drawing the Bull's Eye around the bullet hole. They are calculating the odds of a specific person winning the lottery after they have already won the lottery. They are calculating the improbability of a 52 card hand after the 52 card hand has been dealt. That is the ultimate weakness of the anthropic principle, it put's the cart in front of the horse.

How many people are around in universes incapable of producing people? None. Do you understand the inherent bias?

Really? Please drop the extremely poor analogy already.

 

[Davian]

Ultimately, they are drawing the Bull's Eye around the bullet hole. They are calculating the odds of a specific person winning the lottery after they have already won the lottery. They are calculating the improbability of a 52 card hand after the 52 card hand has been dealt. That is the ultimate weakness of the anthropic principle, it put's the cart in front of the horse.

How many people are around in universes incapable of producing people? None. Do you understand the inherent bias?

Really? Please drop the extremely poor analogy already.

Poor in what way? What does it not address about the tautology (the anthropic principle) that Oncedeceived is presenting as "evidence"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wrong. It shows that you could not provide the context for your verse.

The Pretribulation Rapture

This is the context of the verse showing this is not just a personal interpretation on my part.

Really?

Yes, really.

It seems that you don't know the meaning of ad hominem either. Go back and read the posts again.

blindly ignorant is not ad hominem?

So you are saying that dad cannot be taught? Perhaps you are right.

I'm sorry?

The internet is much bigger than this one forum.

WE blindly ignorant christians are only aware of this one.

Seriously, I don't belong to other forums.

Prove it. Don't accuse me of quote mining, I always include the link so that you can read the quote in the whole context of the article.

You ignored this. I wonder why?

Wrong. And you are adding support to my claim with each and every recent post of yours.

Interesting.

You need to learn the difference between opinion and facts based upon experience.

I do, that is why I said what I said.

You could not be more wrong.

In your humble opinion.

Seriously, there is no doubt that we evolved. Even ID advocates like Michael Behe agree that we evolved.

So you believe we evolved, so what evidence do you feel provides the best support to that belief?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Really? Please drop the extremely poor analogy already.

Right! A lottery is a designed system. It is not a naturally occurring phenomena. All tickets are equally able to be drawn. It is 100% that someone will win the lottery due to the design of plan.

The universe used to compare is a natural occurring phenomena that is one of trillions and trillions (multiverses) of universes that are not equal in their ability to produce life and in fact, must be fine tuned to do so. So within all of these trillion and trillion of universes not only ours had to come into being but with life producing ability. So this is a specified universe unlike the tickets that are equal and have no special elements to account for. So the analogy fails.

It is more like trillions and trillions of red balls in a swimming pool large enough to hold them and having only one black one. How likely is it to believe that one black ball out of all those trillions and trillions of red ones would be the one we see ourselves in? How was the black ball possible in the trillions and trillions of red ones?

Just doesn't sound reasonable to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Pretribulation Rapture

This is the context of the verse showing this is not just a personal interpretation on my part.

That is the best that you can do? An unreadable website written by an idiot. You failed. How about linking more of the verses that directly precede and follow the one you linked. Then I can see if it supports your case. Appealing to a fool does not help you.

blindly ignorant is not ad hominem?

No, it was an apt description.

I'm sorry?

Your apology would be much better without the question mark. Try again.

So you believe we evolved, so what evidence do you feel provides the best support to that belief?

How about the totality of the evidence. All scientific evidence out there supports evolution. There is none that supports creationism. Whether it is the fossil record. The many "trees of life" that can be observed. Or even direct experiments in laboratories. Creationists have nothing.

Do you believe the germ theorem of disease? You do realize that there is much less evidence for that than there is for evolution. Why do you believe the germ theorem when the Bible implies that diseases are caused by demons?

 

[Skaloop]

So you believe we evolved, so what evidence do you feel provides the best support to that belief?

All of it. All of the evidence supports evolution. None of it contradicts evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is the best that you can do? An unreadable website written by an idiot. You failed. How about linking more of the verses that directly precede and follow the one you linked. Then I can see if it supports your case. Appealing to a fool does not help you.






No, it was an apt description.






Your apology would be much better without the question mark. Try again.

Not interested.

How about the totality of the evidence. All scientific evidence out there supports evolution. There is none that supports creationism. Whether it is the fossil record. The many "trees of life" that can be observed. Or even direct experiments in laboratories. Creationists have nothing.

That is not what I asked. I asked what evidence for our evolution ape to man is most convincing to you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All of it. All of the evidence supports evolution. None of it contradicts evolution.

Again, not my question. What evolution of ape and man is most convincing.

 

[Skaloop]

Again, not my question. What evolution of ape and man is most convincing.

That's the thing, though. It's not one thing, it's the amalgam of everything that has ever been observed or studied or tested, all of it pointing to evolution, and none of it contradicting evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, not my question. What evolution of ape and man is most convincing.

Sorry, your question does not make any sense.

Perhaps if you thought and asked again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not interested.





That is not what I asked. I asked what evidence for our evolution ape to man is most convincing to you.

Here your question almost makes sense.

Here is a hint that might clear things up. Men are apes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here your question almost makes sense.

Here is a hint that might clear things up. Men are apes.

So? All you have is generalities?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's the thing, though. It's not one thing, it's the amalgam of everything that has ever been observed or studied or tested, all of it pointing to evolution, and none of it contradicting evolution.

Such as?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So? All you have is generalities?

What? Now you are making even less sense.

Try again.

 

[Skaloop]

Such as?

Everything! DNA. Fossil record. Nested hierarchy. Twin nested hierarchy. Each on their own would pretty much be enough, but all of them point to the same conclusion; evolution.

You asked for the best piece of evidence to support evolution. Well, the best piece of evidence to support evolution is that all the evidence supports evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Everything! DNA. Fossil record. Nested hierarchy. Twin nested hierarchy. Each on their own would pretty much be enough, but all of them point to the same conclusion; evolution.

You asked for the best piece of evidence to support evolution. Well, the best piece of evidence to support evolution is that all the evidence supports evolution.

No I was asking what was the most convincing evidence that we and apes have a common ancestor. Sorry if I was unclear.