What proof would you need? (2)

[Astridhere]

Gish Gallop - RationalWiki

You are another one like Cabvet that just recently cited Nature as being a creationist site.

I say the same to you are I said to him. I thought you were playing a typical evo ploy of tactical ignorance. However I was wrong and giving you way too much credit. Indeed it takes a higher level of ignorance to not be able to distinguish creationist sites from research provided by your own evolutionary boofheads.

 

[Keachian]

You are another one like Cabvet that just recently cited Nature as being a creationist site.

I say the same to you are I said to him. I thought you were playing a typical evo ploy of tactical ignorance. However I was wrong and giving you way too much credit. Indeed it takes a higher level of ignorance to not be able to distinguish creationist sites from research provided by your own evolutionary boofheads.

Your understanding of Biology generally tends to make you think that something says one thing when it says something slightly different, I might remind you of the first time we chatted it was about a study on the differences between chimpanzees and humans, you were claiming it was upturning the idea that we are only about 1% different when in reality it was talking about in what ways that 1% was different

 

[Astridhere]

Jpcedotal actually makes a good point. There's a correlation between the decline of traditional religious beliefs* and the increase of superstition.

One study (Determinants of Superstition) noted that while religiousity in general is more likely to increase belief in the supernatural, there was a negative correlation between church attendance and superstitious beliefs. In fact superstitious belief were actually most common in post-communist countries.



Other studies (Baylor 2005 and 2007) also noted a negative link between religious beliefs / church attendance and belief in creatures which don't exist and superstition. For example:

• When asked whether they believed Bigfoot existed, the highest percentage of people who though the "probably" or "absolutely" existed were those with no religion. Similarly, those who attended church less than one a year were also the most likely to believe they "absolutely" existed. [2007 survey]

• When asked it it was possible to comunicate with the dead, those who never attended church were the most likely to "strongly agree" it was possible. Those with no religion were also the most likely to "strongly agree" and the least likely to "disagree" (although it's worth pointing out they were also the most likely to "strongly disagree"). [2005 survey]

* I say "traditional" because protestant and liberal christians are significantly more likely to be superstitious than Catholic or conservative Christians.

I have another good example of another faiths total belief in creatures that did not exist.

A planet full of evolutionists that believed mankind evolved from a knuckle walking chimp-like common ancestor. How is that for being sucked into believing in creatures that did not exist? Crazy, hey?

 

[Keachian]

I have another good example of another faiths total belief in creatures that did not exist.

A planet full of evolutionists that believed mankind evolved from a knuckle walking chimp-like common ancestor. How is that for being sucked into believing in creatures that did not exist? Crazy, hey?

Ask AV about cryptozoology

 

[Astridhere]

Your understanding of Biology generally tends to make you think that something says one thing when it says something slightly different, I might remind you of the first time we chatted it was about a study on the differences between chimpanzees and humans, you were claiming it was upturning the idea that we are only about 1% different when in reality it was talking about in what ways that 1% was different

I was claiming exactly what I said of the research, that comparisons amongst mankind and chimps are unquantifiable, which is also exactly what your evolutionary researchers were asserting.

If you have any knowledge at all you'll already know the annomolies between morphology and DNA.

One does not need a biology degree to comprehend that if you lot are going to ignore differences, straw grab at any similarity on the assumptions of evolution, then invent terms that excuse every difference and annomoly, what you will end up with is biased self serving results that mean nothing.

No matter how you stroll down garden paths of refuting your own evo researchers, what you lot end up with is biased misrepresentative contradictory ever changing rubbish. Creationists could not possibly provide worse than what you lot offer, no matter how many excuses you make for evolutionary history.

 

[Davian]

You'll get it, Davian.

It might take a couple days, but the light will come on. --

The real challenge would be for you to explain it. And I know you are always one not to step up to a challenge.

 

[Huram Abi]

You are another one like Cabvet that just recently cited Nature as being a creationist site.

I say the same to you are I said to him. I thought you were playing a typical evo ploy of tactical ignorance. However I was wrong and giving you way too much credit. Indeed it takes a higher level of ignorance to not be able to distinguish creationist sites from research provided by your own evolutionary boofheads.

I've said nothing about whatever site you are talking about.

But you don't have to resort to ad homs just because I've shown that your tactic is a fallicious argument.

 

[Huram Abi]

I have another good example of another faiths total belief in creatures that did not exist.

A planet full of evolutionists that believed mankind evolved from a knuckle walking chimp-like common ancestor. How is that for being sucked into believing in creatures that did not exist? Crazy, hey?

Not as crazy as thinking that plants existed before the sun...


Any evidence on that yet?

 

[begt]

I have another good example of another faiths total belief in creatures that did not exist.

A planet full of evolutionists that believed mankind evolved from a knuckle walking chimp-like common ancestor. How is that for being sucked into believing in creatures that did not exist? Crazy, hey?

Just ~50 generations of selective breeding of the Russian silver fox turned it into a tame, in many ways, dog-like creature.

At first they were wild in every sense and quite aggressive. The foxes were then selected by flight distance and tameness. In just a few generations the foxes started to behave like dogs, wagging their tails and display friendly behavior towards humans. There were also some morhpological differences; their tails were different and the fur changed as well. Possibly as a result of lower adrenaline in this new breed.

In conclusion- evolution is very powerful. If 50 generations can make substantial changes imagine what thousands of generations can do. Just like the case with us humans, and the split with the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I have another good example of another faiths total belief in creatures that did not exist.

A planet full of evolutionists that believed mankind evolved from a knuckle walking chimp-like common ancestor. How is that for being sucked into believing in creatures that did not exist? Crazy, hey?

I know you're being facetious, but for the sake of it I decided to look at the Baylor 2007 survey:

• In terms of sheer numbers - out of 1,241 Christians surveyed, 419 of them believed either "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that humans evolved from apes over millions of years. That's roughly 33.7%.
• In terms of percentages - 49.1% of Catholics and 64.7% of mainstream Protestant believe humans evolved from apes over millions of years.
• A different poll (Gallup 2010) noted that belief in creationism correlated with a belief in atheistic evolution. Where one is weakest, the other is strongest. Belief in evolution "Guided by God" however increased by more than 10% among post-graduate students.

So more than one-third of Christians surveyed, almost half of Catholics surveyed and nearly two-thirds of mainstream Protestants surveyed believe in both God and human evolution, as do nearly half of post-graduate students. All of the polls were conducted in America, which unlike other Christian-dominated countries has a strong anti-evolution sentiment.

That's an awful lot of crazy.

 

[Keachian]

That's an awful lot of crazy.

lol, just wait till that's quote mined against TE

 

[Davian]

quote=Davian;59726511]I'm not one to jump to conclusions any faster than needed; it seems to me, even on other, more skeptical sites, that the creationism-types have huge problems with quote tags and punctuation...[.quote]

I,m going to have to disagree with you, on this one?

can you give me an example where I can know where you"re coming from.

You blew it when you 1) actually used punctuation, 2) put an entire empty line between your sentences instead of keeping them together, and 2) failed to shorten 'you are' into 'your'.

The point is, if you are going to poe, there are certain expectations you are going to have to meet.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

You blew it when you 1) actually used punctuation, 2) put an entire empty line between your sentences instead of keeping them together, and 2) failed to shorten 'you are' into 'your'.

The point is, if you are going to poe, there are certain expectations you are going to have to meet.

He's not a poe, he believes every word he writes.

And he didn't use punctuation correctly.

 

[Zaius137]

Not as crazy as thinking that plants existed before the sun...


Any evidence on that yet?

I actually believe this is good evidence for the Genesis account of creation.

The book of Genesis was supposedly written by Moses who was educated in Egypt. Now Egypt was a very technical society at the time. It is hard to believe that Egyptians did not know that plants needed sunlight. So if Moses just made up the story why did he have the plants created before light came on the scene? Or is this what actually happened in creation?

If I was making up a story I believe that I would adhere to the elementary facts as I understood them.

Now you explain to me why you can not accept creation that is fundamental to Jews, Christians and Muslims?

 

[Huram Abi]

I haven't claimed that Moses just made up the story, so his education is irrelevant to my point.


W are talking about how he got this information from a psychic interaction with a spirit, presuming the HS.

Under that assumption, and considering that a literal account would be incorrect, there is only one way to take the creation story and that is metaphorically.

 

[AV1611VET]

I haven't claimed that Moses just made up the story, so his education is irrelevant to my point.


W are talking about how he got this information from a psychic interaction with a spirit, presuming the HS.

Under that assumption, and considering that a literal account would be incorrect, there is only one way to take the creation story and that is metaphorically.

Adam wrote the creation account, not Moses; and since I believe they spoke English from Adam → Tower of Babel, that means I believe Adam wrote the creation account in English, and Moses (or his predecessor, Noah?) translated it into Hebrew.

Adam walked and talked with God up until the time of the Fall; and I assume God dictated the creation account to him, and he wrote it down.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Adam wrote the creation account, not Moses; and since I believe they spoke English from Adam → Tower of Babel, that means I believe Adam wrote the creation account in English, and Moses (or his predecessor, Noah?) translated it into Hebrew.

Adam walked and talked with God up until the time of the Fall; and I assume God dictated the creation account to him, and he wrote it down.

Impressive, considering English (including old English) is less than 1,000 years old.

 

[Gath]

Adam wrote the creation account, not Moses; and since I believe they spoke English from Adam → Tower of Babel, that means I believe Adam wrote the creation account in English, and Moses (or his predecessor, Noah?) translated it into Hebrew.

Adam walked and talked with God up until the time of the Fall; and I assume God dictated the creation account to him, and he wrote it down.

Wait...you think they spoke English before Babel? English wasn't around in times of the Roman Empire, and it didn't really exist at all until 1000 A.D.

Why do you think people spoke it before Babel? How is that logical at all?

 

[Zaius137]

I haven't claimed that Moses just made up the story, so his education is irrelevant to my point.


W are talking about how he got this information from a psychic interaction with a spirit, presuming the HS.

Under that assumption, and considering that a literal account would be incorrect, there is only one way to take the creation story and that is metaphorically.

There is continuity of generation between survivors of the flood (Noah was the first man born after the death of Adam) Noah was alive to give account to Abram (Abraham). The grandson of Abraham (Jacob) was alive to hear a direct account from his grandfather. Jacob’s sons entered Egypt. The story passed generation to generation from there as is the Jewish tradition (just a few generations). I see no reason to say mosses did not receive a very credible account. If not inspired by God himself.

 

[Huram Abi]

So, which is it?

Moses got his education from the Egyptians or he got it from Noah?