You know tack, you shouldn't be so reasonable and thoughtfull, you'll end up being called not "a true Christian™"

(December 5, 2011 at 10:46 am)tackattack Wrote: I will review this thread in it's entirety and post a formal debate tonight if all parties are still wishing to have a formal debate and I find here within the purpose and if it is to be a formal debate. Are lucient and revj still in agreeance on having a formal debate?

We'll do it in standard debate format with four rounds..opening, 2 rebuttals, and closing.

RevJ will be taking the position of the theist with beliefs non-denominational and a trinitarian, as well as a bible literalist and a young earth creationist, original sin, the fall, the life death and resurrection, substitutionary atonement, the second coming, judgement day, heaven and hell as attained from http://100prophecies.org/christianity.htm

lucient will be taking the position of the atheist

The posting times will be one week with an open structured question session after the close, unless the participants would prefer to save questions for a separate discussion thread. If you still agree to the debate, please post an affirmative response with a projected start time for your openers.

Sure, Im ready to go...

Atheists...get ready to be PWND by the one and only Reverend Jeremiah!!!

You are in the same time zone as me Tack...what time will the debate tonight be?

(December 5, 2011 at 10:46 am)tackattack Wrote: I will review this thread in it's entirety and post a formal debate tonight if all parties are still wishing to have a formal debate and I find here within the purpose and if it is to be a formal debate. Are lucient and revj still in agreeance on having a formal debate?

We'll do it in standard debate format with four rounds..opening, 2 rebuttals, and closing.

RevJ will be taking the position of the theist with beliefs non-denominational and a trinitarian, as well as a bible literalist and a young earth creationist, original sin, the fall, the life death and resurrection, substitutionary atonement, the second coming, judgement day, heaven and hell as attained from http://100prophecies.org/christianity.htm

lucient will be taking the position of the atheist

The posting times will be one week with an open structured question session after the close, unless the participants would prefer to save questions for a separate discussion thread. If you still agree to the debate, please post an affirmative response with a projected start time for your openers.

Thank you Tack..I'm still up for the debate. I'll have my opening statement ready by tonight or tomorrow at the latest

I will post around..oh 7:00 pm tonight, which will be 6 and 1/2 hours from the times stamp on this post.

(December 4, 2011 at 5:54 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Ah..macro eveolution....so thats the same thing as saying a walk to the tiny mart 4 blocks away is completely possible (and god inspired), but to walk one mile to the grocery store is completely absurd (god damned!)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Here is the thing. You go on and on and accuse me of being ignorant and you don't even know the difference between micro and macro evolution. Seems like I know more than you do, doesn't it.

Refutation of 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Apparently Rhythm doesn't know the difference either because he thinks his garden proves evolution. Sigh.

Darwin made a great discovery. That species change to adapt to their environment. What he did from there was make a giant leap of speculation to say that because species adapt to their environment, that those adaptations would lead to new species, and therefore, that all life has a common ancestor. Since it wasn't something that could be observed, what was supposed to prove his theory would be evidence from the fossil record. There was only one problem with that:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The total lack of transitional fossils was a complete embarrassment to Darwin. The excuse made was that because the record was so poor, more time was needed to unearth the fossils. Here we are 150 years later, and those transitional forms have failed to materialize. The fossil record is composed mainly of gaps. It also defies all the predictions of gradualism. All the major body types appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion without any discernable evolutionary history, and they appeared highly diversified.

All the major phyla, classes, orders etc were there at the beginning. Species appear suddenly in stasis and leave just as suddenly. The fact is, Macroevolution is not science, it has never been observed nor can it be tested. It is a just-so story which does not fit observation. It would have been thrown into the dustbin long ago excepting that it has become a religion to its adherants.

(December 4, 2011 at 5:54 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: When someone thinks that it is a fine idea that I should be punished for not sharing his beliefs by being tortured under flame for all eternity doesnt deserve my respect. He deserves my distrust and scorn.

I'll let Penn Jillette try to explain it to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-tkQ_Q...r_embedded

(December 4, 2011 at 5:54 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: and your little Jesus too

I hope you display more brainpower than this in our debate. If you attempt to use the debate as device to mock Christianity instead giving it your best shot, I will quit the debate immediately.

Quote:Here is the thing. You go on and on and accuse me of being ignorant and you don't even know the difference between micro and macro evolution

Oh, I was VERY aware of what fundies called "macro evolution". My reply was sarcasm, because the fundy concept of "macro evolution" only exists in their imagination.

BTW, just want you to know that I AM AWARE that you are cutting and pasting your post from other websites, word for word. You arent even trying to make an original statement. That makes you a liar, as you have not given these websites any credit for using their material, you make it seem as this is your personal material. This also makes you a thief because you did not ask them permission to use their materials.

Please do not do this on the debate tonight, as I will be checking ALL of your material for originality

(December 5, 2011 at 2:12 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

Quote:Here is the thing. You go on and on and accuse me of being ignorant and you don't even know the difference between micro and macro evolution

Oh, I was VERY aware of what fundies called "macro evolution". My reply was sarcasm, because the fundy concept of "macro evolution" only exists in their imagination.

BTW, just want you to know that I AM AWARE that you are cutting and pasting your post from other websites, word for word. You arent even trying to make an original statement. That makes you a liar, as you have not given these websites any credit for using their material, you make it seem as this is your personal material. This also makes you a thief because you did not ask them permission to use their materials.

Please do not do this on the debate tonight, as I will be checking ALL of your material for originality

You obviously don't know what macroevolution is if you think it is a "fundy concept". That just shows further shows your ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

And my post is original, because I lifted it off myself. I didn't steal anything, those are my own words.

(December 5, 2011 at 1:50 pm)lucent Wrote:

(December 4, 2011 at 5:54 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Ah..macro eveolution....so thats the same thing as saying a walk to the tiny mart 4 blocks away is completely possible (and god inspired), but to walk one mile to the grocery store is completely absurd (god damned!)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Here is the thing. You go on and on and accuse me of being ignorant and you don't even know the difference between micro and macro evolution. Seems like I know more than you do, doesn't it.

Refutation of 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Apparently Rhythm doesn't know the difference either because he thinks his garden proves evolution. Sigh.

Darwin made a great discovery. That species change to adapt to their environment. What he did from there was make a giant leap of speculation to say that because species adapt to their environment, that those adaptations would lead to new species, and therefore, that all life has a common ancestor. Since it wasn't something that could be observed, what was supposed to prove his theory would be evidence from the fossil record. There was only one problem with that:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The total lack of transitional fossils was a complete embarrassment to Darwin. The excuse made was that because the record was so poor, more time was needed to unearth the fossils. Here we are 150 years later, and those transitional forms have failed to materialize. The fossil record is composed mainly of gaps. It also defies all the predictions of gradualism. All the major body types appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion without any discernable evolutionary history, and they appeared highly diversified.

You do know that there are a vast number of transitional fossils dont you?

https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index....al_fossils

You do know that evolutionary history is preserved in the genes dont you?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16...ution.html

You do know that creatures that predate the cambrian explosion were soft bodied and didnt fossilise well so you are asking a lot to find these things dont you?

But some really really old fossils have been found and you know what they were single celled and simple not all the 'types' were around them.

http://news.discovery.com/space/microfos...10821.html

Its almost as though complex life evolved from simpler forms isnt it.

Quote:All the major phyla, classes, orders etc were there at the beginning. Species appear suddenly in stasis and leave just as suddenly. The fact is, Macroevolution is not science, it has never been observed nor can it be tested. It is a just-so story which does not fit observation. It would have been thrown into the dustbin long ago excepting that it has become a religion to its adherants.

'macroevolution' is an invention by creationists to try to jemmy the fact of evolution into their religion. Ther is no micro or macro evoltion just evolution.
Animals don't suddenly change, but there are small changes and branching off, driven by environmental or social pressures, over a vast period of time that leads to bigger changes and eventually speciation occurs when one branch can't breed successfully with the other branch because the changes are too great.

Quote:I hope you display more brainpower than this in our debate. If you attempt to use the debate as device to mock Christianity instead giving it your best shot, I will quit the debate immediately.

Touchy little fucker arent you?

Okay, I have my opening ready

(December 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You do know that there are a vast number of transitional fossils dont you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra...al_fossils

Apparently you didn't read the disclaimer:

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor

No true ancestors means no proof of macroevolution

(December 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You do know that evolutionary history is preserved in the genes dont you?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16...ution.html

You do know that common genetics also indicates a common designer, don't you?

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/in...ology.html

(December 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You do know that creatures that predate the cambrian explosion were soft bodied and didnt fossilise well so you are asking a lot to find these things dont you?

But some really really old fossils have been found and you know what they were single celled and simple not all the 'types' were around them.

http://news.discovery.com/space/microfos...10821.html

Its almost as though complex life evolved from simpler forms isnt it.

You do know that was debunked, right?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-over...earth.html

(December 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: 'macroevolution' is an invention by creationists to try to jemmy the fact of evolution into their religion. Ther is no micro or macro evoltion just evolution.
Animals don't suddenly change, but there are small changes and branching off, driven by environmental or social pressures, over a vast period of time that leads to bigger changes and eventually speciation occurs when one branch can't breed successfully with the other branch because the changes are too great.

This is a common misunderstanding by atheists who have never actually studied or researched anything about evolution. The terms macroevolution and microevolution are used by evolutionary biologists and were first used by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in 1927. Microevolution is all that has ever been observed, so no it doesn't follow that small changes within a species lead to new species. There is no evidence in the fossil record to support such a conclusion.

"natural selection, long viewed as the process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution. Micro evolution is decoupled from macro evolution."

SM Stanley Johns Hopkins University
Proceedings, National Science Academy Science
Vol.72 p.648