Questions for evolutionists | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 44914620 Netherlands 08/10/2013 01:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 44914620 Netherlands 08/10/2013 01:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
cdevidal (OP) User ID: 28834976 United States 08/10/2013 02:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This guy on Twitter offered answers to these questions: [link to twitter.com (secure)] |
Keep2theCode User ID: 20545539 United States 08/10/2013 02:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Good thread, nicely laid out. I especially like the insistence on answering one question before moving on to another, as this is the most common diversionary tactic. The tu quoque fallacy is very prevalent as well. A skit I made up on this topic: [link to smg.photobucket.com] Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16) |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 16768431 United States 08/10/2013 03:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | RULES Quoting: cdevidal * You must give a direct answer to every question or you've failed. Yes, some questions appear to be repeats but please answer them all as they are all slightly different. christians FAIL * If you give an answer such as "It's not possible to know that" (or something similar) to any question you've failed. christians FAIL * You agree to the principles in this flowchart or you've failed: [link to www.jacoballee.com] christians FAIL * You may not commit any logical fallacies or you've failed. Here is a list of some well-known fallacies. [link to www.informationisbeautiful.net] There may be others that I am not currently aware of. christians FAIL christians FAIL on all counts. "but what about christians? Can they answer the questions?" The response often was, "Where are the thumbscrews?" Quoting: |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 16768431 United States 08/10/2013 03:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 35585142 United States 08/10/2013 03:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Keep2theCode User ID: 20545539 United States 08/10/2013 03:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No one has time to play your faggy games. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35585142 It shouldn't be evolution vs God. Both can coexist. Evolution is a fact. Hell, we evolve from sperm and an egg to a full grown person. Life's origin is a mystery and forever will be to the living. Evolution is against science: [link to scienceagainstevolution.info] Growing from a fertilized egg is NOT evolution, and no evo scientist would back up your claim that it is. As for "mystery", you won't let creationists use that excuse, so you can't use it either. You "just believe" that the first substances appeared out of nothing for no reason, and you have blind faith that these magical things turned into everything from frogs to princes. Blind faith. Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16) |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 35585142 United States 08/10/2013 03:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No one has time to play your faggy games. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35585142 It shouldn't be evolution vs God. Both can coexist. Evolution is a fact. Hell, we evolve from sperm and an egg to a full grown person. Life's origin is a mystery and forever will be to the living. Evolution is against science: [link to scienceagainstevolution.info] Growing from a fertilized egg is NOT evolution, and no evo scientist would back up your claim that it is. As for "mystery", you won't let creationists use that excuse, so you can't use it either. You "just believe" that the first substances appeared out of nothing for no reason, and you have blind faith that these magical things turned into everything from frogs to princes. Blind faith. First of all, my concept of evolution has jack shit to do with evolutionists. So shut the fuck up. Second of all, the definition of evolution is the gradual development of something from a simple to a more complex form, ie the sperm. Third, how would you have any idea of my beliefs of evolution and any other metaphysical beliefs? You don't know me, I haven't shared my beliefs. Evolution has occured and does occur. Whether it started life as we know it, I have no idea and I'm not even prepared to fathom a guess because that is a mystery to great for man to decode. Now get your head out of your ass, open your mind, and prepare for differing ideas they may not comply with your idiotic ramblings. Stop "judging" me based on what you think you know about other people. You know just as much as I know about life after death and the beginning of reality. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 44444698 United States 08/10/2013 03:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No one has time to play your faggy games. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35585142 It shouldn't be evolution vs God. Both can coexist. Evolution is a fact. Hell, we evolve from sperm and an egg to a full grown person. Life's origin is a mystery and forever will be to the living. Evolution is against science: [link to scienceagainstevolution.info] Growing from a fertilized egg is NOT evolution, and no evo scientist would back up your claim that it is. As for "mystery", you won't let creationists use that excuse, so you can't use it either. You "just believe" that the first substances appeared out of nothing for no reason, and you have blind faith that these magical things turned into everything from frogs to princes. Blind faith. First of all, my concept of evolution has jack shit to do with evolutionists. So shut the fuck up. Second of all, the definition of evolution is the gradual development of something from a simple to a more complex form, ie the sperm. Third, how would you have any idea of my beliefs of evolution and any other metaphysical beliefs? You don't know me, I haven't shared my beliefs. Evolution has occured and does occur. Whether it started life as we know it, I have no idea and I'm not even prepared to fathom a guess because that is a mystery to great for man to decode. Now get your head out of your ass, open your mind, and prepare for differing ideas they may not comply with your idiotic ramblings. Stop "judging" me based on what you think you know about other people. You know just as much as I know about life after death and the beginning of reality. Wow the hate coming off this response is very telling. The fact that evolutionists turn to hate and cursing when the discussion is even brought up....just wow. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 35585142 United States 08/10/2013 03:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No one has time to play your faggy games. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35585142 It shouldn't be evolution vs God. Both can coexist. Evolution is a fact. Hell, we evolve from sperm and an egg to a full grown person. Life's origin is a mystery and forever will be to the living. Evolution is against science: [link to scienceagainstevolution.info] Growing from a fertilized egg is NOT evolution, and no evo scientist would back up your claim that it is. As for "mystery", you won't let creationists use that excuse, so you can't use it either. You "just believe" that the first substances appeared out of nothing for no reason, and you have blind faith that these magical things turned into everything from frogs to princes. Blind faith. First of all, my concept of evolution has jack shit to do with evolutionists. So shut the fuck up. Second of all, the definition of evolution is the gradual development of something from a simple to a more complex form, ie the sperm. Third, how would you have any idea of my beliefs of evolution and any other metaphysical beliefs? You don't know me, I haven't shared my beliefs. Evolution has occured and does occur. Whether it started life as we know it, I have no idea and I'm not even prepared to fathom a guess because that is a mystery to great for man to decode. Now get your head out of your ass, open your mind, and prepare for differing ideas they may not comply with your idiotic ramblings. Stop "judging" me based on what you think you know about other people. You know just as much as I know about life after death and the beginning of reality. Wow the hate coming off this response is very telling. The fact that evolutionists turn to hate and cursing when the discussion is even brought up....just wow. Not an evolutionist. You're pretty quick to judge. |
Dace User ID: 952665 Puerto Rico 08/10/2013 03:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No one has time to play your faggy games. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35585142 It shouldn't be evolution vs God. Both can coexist. Evolution is a fact. Hell, we evolve from sperm and an egg to a full grown person. Life's origin is a mystery and forever will be to the living. Evolution is against science: [link to scienceagainstevolution.info] Growing from a fertilized egg is NOT evolution, and no evo scientist would back up your claim that it is. As for "mystery", you won't let creationists use that excuse, so you can't use it either. You "just believe" that the first substances appeared out of nothing for no reason, and you have blind faith that these magical things turned into everything from frogs to princes. Blind faith. Christians arguing that if it didn't happen in your lifetime you can't prove it......really need to look in the mirror and realize the foot-in-the mouth idiocy. |
Keep2theCode User ID: 20545539 United States 08/10/2013 04:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | First of all, my concept of evolution has jack shit to do with evolutionists. So shut the fuck up. Second of all, the definition of evolution is the gradual development of something from a simple to a more complex form, ie the sperm. Third, how would you have any idea of my beliefs of evolution and any other metaphysical beliefs? You don't know me, I haven't shared my beliefs. Evolution has occured and does occur. Whether it started life as we know it, I have no idea and I'm not even prepared to fathom a guess because that is a mystery to great for man to decode. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35585142 Now get your head out of your ass, open your mind, and prepare for differing ideas they may not comply with your idiotic ramblings. Stop "judging" me based on what you think you know about other people. You know just as much as I know about life after death and the beginning of reality. You failed to specify that you had some personal, private, unique "evolution" of your own, and you posted in a thread that you say has nothing to do with what you believe. Try and make sense of that. And your idea of what other people mean by evolution is something they would never agree to, which I already told you. And if you can show evidence that I judged YOU, then you need new eyeballs. Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16) |
Keep2theCode User ID: 20545539 United States 08/10/2013 04:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No one has time to play your faggy games. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35585142 It shouldn't be evolution vs God. Both can coexist. Evolution is a fact. Hell, we evolve from sperm and an egg to a full grown person. Life's origin is a mystery and forever will be to the living. Evolution is against science: [link to scienceagainstevolution.info] Growing from a fertilized egg is NOT evolution, and no evo scientist would back up your claim that it is. As for "mystery", you won't let creationists use that excuse, so you can't use it either. You "just believe" that the first substances appeared out of nothing for no reason, and you have blind faith that these magical things turned into everything from frogs to princes. Blind faith. Christians arguing that if it didn't happen in your lifetime you can't prove it......really need to look in the mirror and realize the foot-in-the mouth idiocy. I don't know any Christians that make that argument, so you're burning a straw man. Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal. 4:16) |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 35585142 United States 08/10/2013 04:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | First of all, my concept of evolution has jack shit to do with evolutionists. So shut the fuck up. Second of all, the definition of evolution is the gradual development of something from a simple to a more complex form, ie the sperm. Third, how would you have any idea of my beliefs of evolution and any other metaphysical beliefs? You don't know me, I haven't shared my beliefs. Evolution has occured and does occur. Whether it started life as we know it, I have no idea and I'm not even prepared to fathom a guess because that is a mystery to great for man to decode. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35585142 Now get your head out of your ass, open your mind, and prepare for differing ideas they may not comply with your idiotic ramblings. Stop "judging" me based on what you think you know about other people. You know just as much as I know about life after death and the beginning of reality. You failed to specify that you had some personal, private, unique "evolution" of your own, and you posted in a thread that you say has nothing to do with what you believe. Try and make sense of that. And your idea of what other people mean by evolution is something they would never agree to, which I already told you. And if you can show evidence that I judged YOU, then you need new eyeballs. If I find evidence, I need new eyeballs? "As for "mystery", you won't let creationists use that excuse, so you can't use it either. You "just believe" that the first substances appeared out of nothing for no reason, and you have blind faith that these magical things turned into everything from frogs to princes. Blind faith." Non of which I have ever said. "You have blind faith." I never stated my faith. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 44683076 United States 08/10/2013 04:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Serae User ID: 44623600 United Kingdom 08/10/2013 04:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 35585142 United States 08/10/2013 04:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 44683076 United States 08/10/2013 05:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 35585142 United States 08/10/2013 05:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | We want truth to be simple, like ONE god, or from ONE cell, when in fact the truth is beyond our comprehension and life is so much more mysterious than we can ever imagine. The more we know, the more complex it is. Couldn't agree more. When, and if, we ever find the answer, we will know its the answer. There wont be a doubt in anyone's mind because of the absolute brilliance the actual truth is. |
cdevidal (OP) User ID: 28834976 United States 08/11/2013 09:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I would like to clarify and redirect the second rule to be more of a guideline: If you give an answer such as "It's not possible to know that" (or something similar) to any question you fail to demonstrate the validity of your worldview. Try harder before posting. I've already updated the original post. |
Alec User ID: 41172993 Australia 08/12/2013 06:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I would like to clarify and redirect the second rule to be more of a guideline: If you give an answer such as "It's not possible to know that" (or something similar) to any question you fail to demonstrate the validity of your worldview. Try harder before posting. Quoting: cdevidal I've already updated the original post. If it is not possible to answer a question, its not possible to answer it, whether or not it supports your argument is irrelevant. |
Alec User ID: 41172993 Australia 08/12/2013 06:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have given answers to some of the questions, I may do more later but am hungry right now... * Do you believe in evolution? - I believe evolution offers the best and best and only useful explanation of the evidence and observations * Do you think it's a belief? - If belief means: "An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists" then yes, but it is not limited to this one definition * When did you start to believe? - When I learned about it * Are you a strong believer in evolution? - "Strong believer" implies something more than reasoned acceptance, I would say that I am highly convinced by the evidence * Could you give me some observable evidence that evolution is true? Something I don't have to receive by faith. Remember, events that occurred 65 million years ago can't be observed. If you say "fossil record," please be specific: Give one example. - There is a process in medicine that occurs when a new virus is discovered and doctors don't know how to treat the unfortunately inflicted patient, so they use the evolutionary tree and place the virus on the tree where they think it should be based on its genetic makeup and other factors... From doing this they are able to identify what treatments are most likely to be effective. This is done because it is uncannily useful and accurate, if common decent was not true this would not work, and cures to viruses would not be as readily available. * You've got the canine 'kind' with the coyote and the domestic dog, and there's the feline 'kind' which is the cats, the tiger and the kitten and you've got humankind. So, Darwin said there would be a change of 'kinds' over many years so could you give me one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kinds'? I don't want something I have to accept by faith. I want it to be observable. I don't want to have to have faith in the experts, I want to observe it myself. Can you give one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kind'? - The 'Large-blotched Salamander' is a good example of a species that has evolved within our lifetime to the point where genetic drift has meant that the newest generations are not genetically compatible enough to procreate with others of the same species that for many years have been apart. This answers the question to a point but really the question is asking for something that evolution does not state... For example a dog will always produce dogs, which is why humans are apes and both humans and dogs are mammals. * The scientific method must be observable and repeatable, so could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kinds? If you say "stickleback fish", you must specify what other 'kind' have they become. These have remained as fish. Remember, Lenski's bacteria are still bacteria. The Galapagos finches are still finches. Their change in beak is adaptation, not Darwinian evolution. There's no different animal involved. I want something which shows me Darwin's belief in the change of kinds is scientific. Can you give me anything that I can see, observe, and test, which is the scientific method, for Darwinian evolution which is a change of kinds, so that I don't have to exercise faith? - Apes to humans. Speciation is an aspect of evolution, if evolution were not true then speciation would not occur. * Do you believe in intelligent design? No * How would you make a rose? A rose has a seed so you've got to start from nothing. Could you make a rose from nothing? Magic, I would use magic * No professor or biology major in the film was able to claim they were able to make a rose from nothing. For the purposes of this thread, I am going to assume you cannot, either. So if you say there is no intelligent design, where does that leave you on the scale of intelligence if you can't even make a rose? As I don't believe that roses were created by an intelligence, not being able to make one "from nothing" does not reflect my intelligence. If anything it would reflect my level of omnipotence * So could you give me an example of vestigial organs? (I believe it is implied he is asking about human organs.) Plica semilunaris of conjunctiva |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 26795689 United States 08/12/2013 07:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
gimel User ID: 47008219 Poland 04/05/2016 06:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Q1: Do you believe in evolution? A1: I believe in evolution in exactly the same manner and same measure as I believe in life, and based on the same premises. Q2: Do you think it's a belief? A2: So much as belief in reality of one's existence and reality of the world around is belief, yes. Yes, think it is a belief. Q3: When did you start to believe? A3: The moment I believed there is a real world, ie. a totality of what can cause the cessation of my existence, and that the rules governing facts are time-independent (don't change over time). Q4: Are you a strong believer in evolution? A4: What does 'strong' mean in the context? But very well, as I just stated, I believe in evolution justt the way I believe in life. Q5: Could you give me some observable evidence that evolution is true? Something I don't have to receive by faith. Remember, events that occured 65 million years ago can't be observed. If you say "fossil record," please be specific: Give one example. A5: At this point we should perhaps define evolution, lest we fall prey to the fallacy of equivocation. I mean, imagine that someone misunderstood the definition of the main subject of argument and went on to fight strawmen... Assuming that evolution is a change of frequency of inheritable traits within a populace over time (and this is the most basic definition), consider that a) the colour of human irises is a mendelian trait; b) the percentage of people with blue eyes, worldwide, varies over time. Of course that doesn't constitute a proof positive that "evolution is real". We have made a number of disputable hidden assumptions here: "the world is real", "we can trust our senses", "being are as they seem to be", "time goes by" etc. But within the frame of empirical worldview, yes, we have just proven that evolution is real and observable. Unless someone tampered with the records, obviously. Q6: You've got the the canine 'kind' with the coyote and the domestic dog, and there's the feline 'kind' which is the cats, the tiger and the kitten and you've got humankind. So, Darwin said there would be a change of 'kinds' over many years so could you give me one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kinds'? I don't want something I have to accept by faith. I want it to be observable. I don't want to have to have faith in the experts, I want to observe it myself. Can you give one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kind'? A6: Should that even count as a single question? Anyway, I would very much welcome a direct quotation from Darwin. And before I answer your question I will need a definition of 'kind', as I am somewhat unfamiliar with the term. The fact that you put coyotes and dogs (but without wolves) in one kind (different species, producing viable hybrids) but also put cats and tigers(!) in another kind (same family, different genera, different species) tells me it's not exactly a well-established taxonomical term. Q7: Did we have lungs or gills when we came out of the sea? A7: What you mean 'we', kemosabe? And what is the difference between lungs and gills? That one is well-suited to operating in air, the other works underwater? And how does one define "coming out of the sea"? Q8: The scientific method must be observable and repeatable, so could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kinds? If you say "stickleback fish", you must specify what other 'kind' have they become. These have remained as fish. Remember, Lenski's bacteria are still bacteria. The Galapagos finches are still finches. Their change in beak is adaptation, not Darwinian evolution. There's no different animal involved. I want something which shows me Darwin's belief in the change of kinds is scientific. Can you give me anything that I can see, observe, and test, which is the scientific method, for Darwinian evolution which is a change of kinds, so that I don't have to exercise faith? A8: It dawns upon me that we are using somewhat incompatible definitions of evolution. And again, we have yet to define 'kind'. Are you saying that 'fish' is a kind? 'Bacteria' is a kind? But that would somewhat by necessity imply that, well, mammals form one kind, including felines, canines, humans... If you could supply a formal definition of a kind (a simple enumeration would also suffice, thank you very much), the discussion would become much easier. And I'm not entirely certain that Darwin ever mentioned "change of kinds", or 'kinds' themselves, for that matter. Neither did any biology book I've read, any biologist I've talked to, no one really. Incidentally, there is no "Darwinian" evolution, there is evolution, period. An observable phenomenon, defined as above. There is such a thing as Darwinian theory of evolution, currently supplanted by the so called neo-Darwinian synthesis. And yes, one of the predictions of these theories is... Wait, you won't even be satisfied with speciation. That's somewhat incovenient. Q9: If you cannot offer any observable evidence for Darwinian (macro, change in 'kind') evolution, how do you know it's true? A9: I'm a radical empiricist, my friend, I maintain that within the material world (posessing a measure of existence, I define world as totality of that which is at least as real as I am; mostly things that could end my being) there can be no 'episthmh'-'knowledge', at most 'doxa'-'conviction'. And once again, proofs for or against a certain theory of evolution do not disprove the existence of evolution itself, much as disproving atomic theory of matter hardly disproves matter as such. 'Evolution' is a common name for a set of observed facts; that over time a) new hereditary traits appear; b) old hereditary traits every so often disappear; c) frequency of extant traits varies. Q10: No professor or biology major in the film was able to give observable evidence of a change in 'kind'. Therefore, Darwinian evolution (a change in 'kind') is un-observable. You need millions of years. If Darwinian evolution is not observable, is it scientific? A10: If I may hypothetize, perhaps it was because they were not given a definition of kind? But very well, I capitulate. Let us indeed from now on consider two different phenomena: a) 'evolution' without qualifier, defined as way above, which you may feel free to call microevolution; b) "Darwinian evolution", defined as "change in kinds". Presumably the latter would be an observation of descendants of the same organism belonging to two different kinds. If that were the case, Darwinian evolution has yet to be observed. So is a full circle of Pluto around the Sun for that matter. And indeed, if Darwinian evolution is not observable, it is not scientific. It yet remains to prove whether it is observable or not. Q11: You're trusting that the biology majors and professors know what they're talking about and they can't even give evidence of a change of kinds. Do you realize that's called 'blind faith'? Remember, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins A11: I also trust that you are a human being, while for all I know you're a team of weasels, operating a trenchcoat and a computer keyboard. Also, I'm not trusting 'that'. You seem to put your trust in that. In the end, "world exists" is an act of blind faith. You would do well to remember that. Q12: Do you believe in intelligent design? A12: Of what? Q13: How would you make a rose? A rose has a seed so you've got to start from nothing. Could you make a rose from nothing? A13: With considerable ease. Yes, yes I could. Just supply me with 'nothing'. Q14: No professor or biology major in the film was able to claim they were able to make a rose from nothing. For the purposes of this thread, I am going to assume you cannot, either. So if you say there is no intelligent design, where does that leave you on the scale of intelligence if you can't even make a rose? A14: Observe: I hereby claim that I am indeed capable of creating a rose ex nihilo. Done, I just made a claim! So I indeed can make a claim, as you so plainly see. Assuming I said there is no Intelligent Design (of what, yet again?), we have yet to, well, define the scale (and what is the measure of intelligence precisely?). Q15: So could you give me an example of vestigial organs? (I believe it is implied he is asking about human organs.) A15: 'Vestigial' does not really mean 'useless' you would do well to remember that. "Coccyx is vestigial" really means "in apes it's much larger". "Appendix is vestigial" is shorthand for "in other species it's much larger and plays an active role in digestion, it doesn't in human anatomy". And yes, both are vestigial. So are toes for that matter. Q16: Skeptic websites often examples of famous atheists in an attempt to win converts. But more often than not, the famous personalities cited are not atheists. Aside from Earnest Hemingway (listed in the video), Can you think of any famous atheists which you can validate have never made a statement attesting to their belief in a deity? (At 18:32 in the video, quotes from Abraham Lincoln, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dawrwin show clearly they are/were not atheists. For the sake of brevity I will not list them here.) A16: A non sequitur if I've ever seen one, where does that lead? Q17: Do you believe in moral absolutes? A17:, OK, I'll bite. Yes, I believe there are moral absolutes. Q18: Is rape always wrong? A18: To me? Yes. Q19: So who makes the rules? A19: Every man for themselves. Q20: PZ Myers stated that we make the rules. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So if Hitler made the rules and he had the majority, he makes the rules? A20: For whom? He makes rules for himself, agreed. For anyone else? No. I can resign my will to others ("one rule and one rule only: all the rules they made for me are accepted, and only these rules"), but somewhat paradoxically, I can only eschew my will by exercising it. Q21: Did Hitler put into practice survival of the fittest? Such as the lion eating the antelope. A21: Not really. Survivor of the fittest is the concept that units best fit to their enviroment (in possession of certain traits, depending on the enviroment) achieve reproductional success, ie. have most viable offspring and said offspring reaches their maturity. Death after said success does not affect it. If the lion has no cubs, it does not survive (its line dies out), even though it succesfully hunted, if the antelope bore several young before it fell prey to the lion, it survived. Q22: Your pet dog (or insert other beloved pet) and your rotten neighbor are drowning. You can only save one of them. Which would you save? A22: The human, why? Q23: The biology majors all chose to save the dog. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So you think dogs are more valuable than human beings? Q23: Which dogs, which humans? Q24: If you believe in evolution it's just a matter of survival of the fittest. Your neighbor's a primate and you've got a canine, and you like the canine more than you like the primate. If the grouchy neighbor drowns, he drowns. Survival of the fittest. Would that be correct? A24: Well, had i had the pet neutered before, not really, the pet's line is already doomed. So no, not really. You are mixing orders here. Q25: Are you an atheist who thinks God doesn't exist? A25: Matter of fact I'm a Christian. What of it? Q26: An atheist in the movie stated that after we die we cease to exist. Ray Comfort said, "If you were a car and your motor were turned off that would be right, that's inanimate. But you're a living, biological human being with the life of God in you. .. Is there no life in you?" Atheist: "Yes there's life in me." "That's your soul." If you agree with the atheist, how do you know? A26: Cars do not really cease to exist when their motors are turned off, but I get where you're headed with this analogy. And, well, I have started my dealings with the world with "I can be said in some way to exist, but it may happen that I will cease to" as a starting point... Q27: Are you a good person? If there's a heaven, will you make it there? A27: Yes, I am. No, I don't know if I'll be saved (by the way, no heaven for me, thank you, I much prefer renewed world). Q28: How many lies have you told in your whole life? A28: Quite a few, what of it? Q29: What would you call me if I told lots of lies? You'd call me a liar, wouldn't you? A29: Why would I do that? Q30: So what does that make you if you've told lies? A30: I guess you're aiming for 'liar' as an answer. Q31: Have you ever stolen anything in your whole life even if it's small? A31: Yep! Q32: That's called theft. So what are you? A32: A bourgeois! Or did you have something different in mind? Q33: Have you ever used God's name in vain? A33: ^@*#, yes! Q34: Jesus said that if you look upon a woman with lust in your heart you've committed adultery. Have you ever looked at another person with lust, such as with pornography? A34: Does it count if we're married? But yes, for the sake of the spiel, yes. Q35: Would you sell one of your eyes for one million dollars? Both for 100 million dollars? A35: If need be. Q36: Do you know what God did for guilty sinners so we wouldn't have to go to hell? A36: But of course! He sent His Messenger, Muhammad, a holy Quran, dictated by angel... Wait, wrong religion. But let us assume that I do know indeed. Q37: Does that make sense? (He was not asking if they believed it, just if the statements made a logical connection.) A37: That God has to "legally dismiss our case", as though God wasn't the one who puts rules in place, executes them and judges the accused at the same time? No, not a lick. Penal substitution atonement theory of Jesus's death, mixed with government theory for good measure, is full of steaming bovine excrement. Q38: When are you going to die? A38: Not really, no. Q39: Does that make sense? A39: Not really, no. Q40: Are you going to think about this? A40: Already did. Q41: Could you be wrong about God's existence? A41: I can be wrong at just about everything which is related to the world. Q42: Are you a talking primate? A42: Yes. Q43: Are you a cousin of bananas? A43: A distant one, yes. |
gimel User ID: 47008219 Poland 04/05/2016 07:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 71953186 Philippines 04/05/2016 07:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Jesus Christ, God, creation and the truth of Scripture is all about faith. I could not care less how illogical it is. I could not care less what "proof" is produced for the other side. It is about faith not evidence or proof and creation being about to explain things better than accepted science or vice versa. no debate needed and no need to convince anyone of it If they reject Christ you cannot expect them to accept creation. So first things first and if they reject the first things then it is pointless to go further. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70598998 Netherlands 04/05/2016 07:29 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 71947961 United Kingdom 04/05/2016 07:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The main crux of evolution is it's the best theory on the table and is supported by much evidential data. If you don't want to accept it then fine or come up with something better and testable. But using the lame cop out of the magic sky fairy is just unacceptable as their is not one shred of evidence to back it up so it's a non-starter from the gate. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70598998 Netherlands 04/05/2016 07:40 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The main crux of evolution is it's the best theory on the table and is supported by much evidential data. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71947961 If you don't want to accept it then fine or come up with something better and testable. But using the lame cop out of the magic sky fairy is just unacceptable as their is not one shred of evidence to back it up so it's a non-starter from the gate. Its just a simple theory that got glorified but there are to many flaws for it to be actually true its natural people dont embrace it unless one is a zombie |