An atheists world (3)

[Split Rock]

Yet you believe what is on the papers of a textbook based written evidence, yet you yourself have not done the research yourself.

That is called "Faith".

Like I said, Pizza is a religion. You have to have Faith that the pizza delivery boy will deliver your pizza after you place a phone order. Its all the same... yep... faith in Jesus, evolution and pizza. You have sucessfully reduced your faith to fast-food. Congratulations!

 

[Split Rock]

This means that praying mantises who enjoy something more committed than a one night stand are SELECTED AGAINST.

Perhaps, but they aren't all killed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Explain the evolution of a praying mantis, since the male enjoys sex once.

The male who enjoys sex once has more offspring in the next generation than a male who does not enjoy sex at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you mean "Nebraska Man."

Thankee.

 

[createdtoworship]

Let's get back to YOUR POINT about the early atmosphere! I provided links that talked about that.

Just follow up YOUR POINT.

why after you accused me of changing the bars 2-3 times. Ihave successfully moved on to another topic. However if you want to talk chemistry you are talking to the wrong crowd here. Try to explain how the early atmosphere for life would in fact be inhabitable.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes ... I believe anything with "pithecus" in its name is an ape, or apelike.

yes it looks as if no one can provide a real missing link? I quess it's why it's called the missing link!

ape (missing link) human

two different genra with no links.

 

[Davian]

Yet you believe what is on the papers of a textbook based written evidence, yet you yourself have not done the research yourself.

That is called "Faith".

What is that drug AVET always talks about? It was something that caused a lot of birth defects.

Do you think the women would have taken it had it been written down?

Ah, word games. So devious.

Conflate two different usages of the same word (faith as trusting scientists to follow scientific methodology, peer review, and scientific consensus, and faith in the religious sense) and your gods poof into existence? Did it work?

















Nope. Still no gods.

Any more semantic trickery up your sleeve?

 

[createdtoworship]

Yet you believe what is on the papers of a textbook based written evidence, yet you yourself have not done the research yourself.

That is called "Faith".

What is that drug AVET always talks about? It was something that caused a lot of birth defects.

Do you think the women would have taken it had it been written down?

people assume faith to be religious, but that is only one use of faith.

people have faith in a pilot while flying,

they have faith in a dentist while drilling...

millions of examples of faith being used by athiests/ agnostics / evolutionists.

by all of us.

don't you agree?

 

[createdtoworship]

Ah, word games. So devious.

Conflate two different usages of the same word (faith as trusting scientists to follow scientific methodology, peer review, and scientific consensus, and faith in the religious sense) and your gods poof into existence? Did it work?

it's only an equivocation if the word isn't in context in the second instance, here it is as faith is not always religious faith.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is not what evolution teaches. No monkey ever gave birth to a man. Just as no chihuahua ever gave birth to a Great Dane. But both dogs can trace their lines back to a wolf species that was domesticated by early man.

What evolution teaches is that a large population of proto-primates split into two and speciation began. during and after speciation, one group started looking and acting more and more momkey-like, while the other started looking more and more ape-like, and their tails got shorter and shorter until they had no visible tail at all. During this time, both groups split into more and more species, the one eventually producing all of the different monkeys we know today, and the other producing the lesser apes and the greater apes. In each case, each split produced new species that did not interbreed with any of the other species.

At one point, one branch of lesser apes gave rise to a larger breed of ape. Some of these apes left Africa and ended up in the islands off of Southeast Asia. These would eventually become orangutans. Another branch became too large to live comfortably in the trees, and eventually became gorillas. The third group started the changes that would result in chimpanzees. But there were two more splits. One group reached the edge of the rainforest and lived on the plains by day returning to the trees only for safety while sleeping, while the other stayed in the jungle, eventually becoming chimpanzees and bonobos. The group on the plains eventually moved deeper, giving up the safety of the trees of the jungle. Theylearned to use tools, and to change the environment to fit them, even as the environment continued to change them. The population split a few times, resulting in several new species. But only one species survives today, Homo Sapiens.

Chimpanzees and Man are classified as two separate genera, mostly as a concession to Christians who cannot accept that we are so closely related. By rights, by all of the markers we use to determine genus, we should be the same genus. Our DNA is much closer than that of different species in other genera, even some that can still be interbred. That suggests that a human/chimp hybrid might at least be theoretically possible. Not that any ethical researcher would seriously explore testing that idea.

I suppose that was a strawman of types I am man enough to admit, but you also know exactly what I am saying and refuse to answer the question.

do you have any thing in between an ape and a human?

or a dinasaur and a bird?

those are the questions I am asking.

everyone has transitional forms they believe are legitimate what are yours

Lucy?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Ah, word games. So devious.

Conflate two different usages of the same word (faith as trusting scientists to follow scientific methodology, peer review, and scientific consensus, and faith in the religious sense) and your gods poof into existence? Did it work?

Nope. Still no gods.

Any more semantic trickery up your sleeve?

You jumped the general question.

Would you say there was zero error in textbooks 100 years ago?

 

[biggles53]

I suppose that was a strawman of types I am man enough to admit, but you also know exactly what I am saying and refuse to answer the question.

do you have any thing in between an ape and a human?

Humans ARE apes....but, if you mean the particular branch upon which we are perching, how about Homo habilis, H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, H. sapiens...?

or a dinasaur and a bird?

Archaeopteryx...?

 

[Davian]

Fair enough.

My claim was that Creation has predictions and support for those predictions.

That sounds like science. Has it predicted anything before it was actually discovered?

Considering it is a book that was written millenniums ago and that it is not meant to be a "science book", I feel it gives enough information to be informative.

So it is not a science book. So then how do we validate that information? Do we accept what "feels good"? What about all of those other religions that might "feel good" to believe in?

It is best that way. God uses the Bible to speak to those who believe in Him. Interpretations are based on what God wants to impart to those who are reading it.

How do you know it is "based on what God wants"? Do you think like God? Does this God want a remarkable level of inconsistency?

Hm...

How was I in error? There is no real evidence for what sequence the earth, sun and moon formed in.

Argument from ignorance.

Ok, provide the evidence that would show earth could not have formed first.

Would you also like evidence that the earth is spherical, rotates, and orbits the sun?

No, the burden of evidence remains on you.

There are things in the Bible that can be tested.

There are things in the Spiderman comics that can be tested. New York exists.

It is a process. Scientific methodology has its place. Theology has its. The problem with Science vs. The Bible is that Science is discovering and changing all the time

Which is a strength, not a problem, as you have written.

while the Bible is always the same.

Now, if we could get two interpretations of the bible to line up....

Some areas science isn't capable of providing the answers, at times science says one thing and then has to change it to accommodate new findings.

Increasing the accuracy of our collective knowledge. Of what use is theology?

OK.

My goal is as I've told you. Take it or leave it. I am not twisting your arm to converse with me. I am here to exchange ideas, to present my worldview to those who do not hold that same view and to gain insight into theirs. I want honest and respectful dialog between those who frequent this site. I have gained friendships, I've laughed and even cried with those who I've encountered on this and other sites. For those who wish to do so, I say Come let us reason together.

Sure. But let us try more reason, less fallacies, and give up on the shifting of the burden of evidence.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

people assume faith to be religious, but that is only one use of faith.

people have faith in a pilot while flying,

they have faith in a dentist while drilling...

millions of examples of faith being used by athiests/ agnostics / evolutionists.

by all of us.

don't you agree?

Yes. My point is the revisions in science journals and textbooks due to error. Now there might not be any noted error for years, until the same experiment goes sour and there is proof of error.

Therefore science is not perfect, just like those scholars who rewrote the English bible.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes. My point is the revisions in science journals and textbooks due to error. Now there might not be any noted error for years, until the same experiment goes sour and there is proof of error.

Therefore science is not perfect, just like those scholars who rewrote the English bible.

science is definitately not perfect. Many scientific theories are superceded...

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) - Toptenz.net

 

[Davian]

Explain the evolution of a praying mantis, since the male enjoys sex once.

The male who enjoys sex once has more offspring in the next generation than a male who does not enjoy sex at all.

There is also the benefit of providing nourishment to the mother of your offspring just at the time that she needs it. She's obviously hungry.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

That sounds like science. Has it predicted anything before it was actually discovered?

So it is not a science book. So then how do we validate that information? Do we accept what "feels good"? What about all of those other religions that might "feel good" to believe in?

How do you know it is "based on what God wants"? Do you think like God? Does this God want a remarkable level of inconsistency?

Argument from ignorance.

Would you also like evidence that the earth is spherical, rotates, and orbits the sun?

No, the burden of evidence remains on you.

There are things in the Spiderman comics that can be tested. New York exists.

Which is a strength, not a weakness, as you seem to imply.

Now, if we could get two interpretations of the bible to line up....

Increasing the accuracy of our collective knowledge. Of what use is theology?

Sure. But let us try more more reason, less fallacies, and give up on the shifting of the burden of evidence.

You can't argue "what about those other feel good religions" when your religion is based on you feeling good. That would mean what makes your beliefs of more value then the other feel good atheists.

 

[Davian]

You jumped the general question.

Would you say there was zero error in textbooks 100 years ago?

I would not say that.

Do you think there are any errors made by scientists in the past 100 years big enough to pull a god through? How big of a hole do you need?

 

[OllieFranz]

I suppose that was a strawman of types I am man enough to admit, but you also know exactly what I am saying and refuse to answer the question.

do you have any thing in between an ape and a human?

or a dinasaur and a bird?

those are the questions I am asking.

everyone has transitional forms they believe are legitimate what are yours

Lucy?

I did not refuse to answer. I answered quite fully. I did not mention specific species because my answer was more inclusive of the fact that neither monkeys nor modern apes are direct ancestors of ours. Now that I know you wanted the specific transitional species, I have to wonder why you needed me to name them. What you think you can spring on me if I do.

Maybe you should just come right out and tell us what you want to say. You've seen the transitionals as often as we have. You know the scientific names, the common names for the species, and the nicknames for the individuals. Nothing is gained by my repeating them.

 

[Davian]

it's only an equivocation if the word isn't in context in the second instance, here it is as faith is not always religious faith.

But it was equivocation in how he used it. Do you think word games will poof your favourite deity into existence?