(May 6, 2012 at 2:41 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(May 6, 2012 at 2:37 am)Godschild Wrote: Sorry sparrows, however my statement stands.

Does it?

I have to assume that you've read my response (since it's immediately above Phil's), and yet you chose to not respond to it.

Your statement (more correctly, assertion) is unsupported. Care to support it? If you don't, that's fine, but realize that it stands only as an unevidenced assertion and can be treated as such. I presume you know what that means (i.e. it means that your statement doesn't stand at all).

Check with R.L. Johnson.

(May 6, 2012 at 7:04 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(May 6, 2012 at 2:41 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Does it?

I have to assume that you've read my response (since it's immediately above Phil's), and yet you chose to not respond to it.

Your statement (more correctly, assertion) is unsupported. Care to support it? If you don't, that's fine, but realize that it stands only as an unevidenced assertion and can be treated as such. I presume you know what that means (i.e. it means that your statement doesn't stand at all).

Check with R.L. Johnson.

Care to narrow it down a little bit more than that? I have no intention on going on a snipe hunt to track down a source for your assertion.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:41 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(May 6, 2012 at 2:37 am)Godschild Wrote: Sorry sparrows, however my statement stands.

Does it?

I have to assume that you've read my response (since it's immediately above Phil's), and yet you chose to not respond to it.

Your statement (more correctly, assertion) is unsupported. Care to support it? If you don't, that's fine, but realize that it stands only as an unevidenced assertion and can be treated as such. I presume you know what that means (i.e. it means that your statement doesn't stand at all).

Here's my argument against the salmon.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5510/1853.full
Examining Evidence of Reproductive Isolation in Sockeye Salmon
Science 9 March 2001
vol 291 no.5510 p. 1853

---

(May 6, 2012 at 7:58 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(May 6, 2012 at 7:04 pm)Godschild Wrote: Check with R.L. Johnson.

Care to narrow it down a little bit more than that? I have no intention on going on a snipe hunt to track down a source for your assertion.

Do like I did input sparrows interbreeding and read all the articles I did or skip to the ones with R.L. Johnson associated to them.

(May 6, 2012 at 10:58 am)popeyespappy Wrote:

(May 6, 2012 at 2:39 am)DeeTee Wrote: P.S. Insulting a person's Holy book is disrespectful and insulting. If you can't call it the Bible then don't refer to it at all. if you want to be treated with respect treat others and their beliefs with respect.

*sung to the tune of Mary Had a Little Lamb

The BuyBull is a fucking lie,
Fucking lie, fucking lie.
The BuyBull is a fucking lie,
And DeeTee is full of shit.

He believes every thing it says,
Thing it says, thing it says.
He believes every thing it says,
Even though it is a fucking lie.

His ignorance is sad to see,
Sad to see, sad to see.
His ignorance is sad to see,
Let us hope he never breeds.

The BuyBull is a fucking lie,
Fucking lie, fucking lie.
The BuyBull is a fucking lie,
And DeeTee is full of shit.

Okay - that is fucking funny!

(May 6, 2012 at 9:19 pm)Godschild Wrote: Here's my argument against the salmon.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5510/1853.full
Examining Evidence of Reproductive Isolation in Sockeye Salmon
Science 9 March 2001
vol 291 no.5510 p. 1853

Are you really that deluded to think a paper from 11 years ago refutes what is seen now? Tell you what, the last sentence of that paper is Population differentiation is not a sufficient condition for incipient speciation , I dare you to contact Jerry Coyne (one of the authors that I know is easily accessible) and ask him if he still agrees with it. I can guarantee the answer will be no.

(May 6, 2012 at 2:38 am)DeeTee Wrote:

Quote:But they couldn't explain any of it

Were you there so you can prove this true?

By this logic, I couldn't prove the Titanic sank because I wasn't there. And were you there when your imaginary deity supposedly created the universe? Oh, that's right.... you don't need evidence to believe bullshit.

Quote:Oh wait, you weren't, so you don't know that is true.

And you weren't there when Jesus supposedly rose up from the dead. So you can't know that's true.

Quote:You take a few remains of ancient books and extrapolate their non-discussion of the world around them to all ancient people then interpret those off topic writings to fit what you want them to mean.

Sounds like you're describing your Babble.

Quote:Doesn't work that way. Unless you have read every ancient book, talked to every ancient person you can't say that.

Ridiculously impossible standard.

Quote:No, if there was no creation then there would be NO creation stories.

Gee... so apparently you believe that if stories exist about something, it must be true. In that case, you must believe the following things are (or were) real: dragons, unicorns, mermaids, fairies, trolls, leprechauns, elves, flying horses, the Kraken, Santa Claus, etc, etc... Hey! If there was no Santa Claus, there wouldn't be any Santa stories, right?

Quote: If evolution were true, we would be hearing evolutionary tales, and bedtime stories.

Oh, right! I guess the Heliocentric Theory isn't true because there are no "tales" or "bedtime stories" about it. What stupidity.

Quote:You may be wrong. We have archaeological finds that point to precision brain surgery, we have other finds that demonstrate 1st class dentistry, some far better than any modern dentist could do. So I think you are very wrong.

Please present any evidence you may have for ancient people performing organ transplants.

Quote:Dawkins??? You want me to read the biggest blowhard whose bias, unobjectivity, and dishonesty are well known...ha ha ha.

Yeah, I expected you to respond like this. The man is one of the world's most respected and knowledgable evolutionary biologists. And all you can do is laugh at him. You can bring knowledge to some people....

Quote:The ancients had no clue what caused volcanoes to erupt, what caused earthquakes, the tides, storms, lightning, etc. They ascribed everything to the actions of various gods.

Quote:Bad logic.

Uh, no logic involved here. It's just the truth.

Quote: That is like archaeologists 2,000 years from now declaring that the 20th-21st century did not have or understand nuclear power because they read the writings of Hare Krishna.

Now THAT is bad logic! A true comparison would be if people in the 20th-21st centuries didn't understand how nuclear power worked and believed it was caused by the actions of some god.

Quote:Yes you do. You are the one demanding physical evidence so you need to be there to obtain it and prove your claims.

What a moronic standard. This is like saying I can't prove dinosaurs existed because I wasn't there to see them.

Quote:http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_4.htm

I guess our ideas of what constitutes "a computer" are quite different.

Quote:Origins is beyond the scope and capibilities of science as it lies in the realm of theology, religion and christianity.

"Origins" lies in christianity, huh? Then we can't find "origins" in Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc, etc.... And I can understand why you want to push science out of the "origins" field. This is one of the few things that science has yet to fully discover. (And when I speak of "origins", I'm talking about how life came about, not evolution). Most everything people like you have attributed to "God" throughout history has been explained by science. You are terrified that science will discover what sparked the creation of life. This would move your god to irrelevancy. Can't have that!

Quote: Science is an interloper who can't mind its own business and is being used to lead people astray from the truth.

You should have been a witness for the prosecution at Galileo's trial.

Quote: I said the people who wrote the Babble thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

Quote:Prove it. I have found no such idea in all my studies so pony up the credible evidence to support that bad assertion. You are assuming something and you are very wrong.

Pythagorus first postulated that the Earth was round in 570 BCE. The books of the OT were written well before that. And people thought the Earth was the center of the universe until Copernicus theorized a heliocentric solar system in the early 16th century. Oh, but I wasn't there so I guess I can't know for sure if these people really existed.

(May 5, 2012 at 11:01 am)Chuck Wrote: Despite all the research done, no creation of any species by any god has been observed.

I agree 100%. It is faith- very similar to the belief in evolution. Evidence however suggests that creation by God is a reasonable faith - based on what we can "check" and the honesty of the authors of the Bible - which you can verify for yourself. It is somewhat disconcerting that some "facts" are fabricated to support the theory of evolution - which you can also verify.

(May 7, 2012 at 11:29 am)Carnavon Wrote:

(May 5, 2012 at 11:01 am)Chuck Wrote: Despite all the research done, no creation of any species by any god has been observed.

I agree 100%. It is faith- very similar to the belief in evolution. Evidence however suggests that it is a reasonable faith - cteation by God

Evolution has fuck all to do with faith. It is only morons like you who try to claim otherwise.

(May 7, 2012 at 11:29 am)Carnavon Wrote:

(May 5, 2012 at 11:01 am)Chuck Wrote: Despite all the research done, no creation of any species by any god has been observed.

I agree 100%. It is faith- very similar to the belief in evolution. Evidence however suggests that it is a reasonable faith - cteation by God

Faith and evidence don't go in the same sentence. With evidence comes the rational understanding of a particular truth whereas with faith one acknowledges it can not be shown to be true, hence why one must have faith that it is true.

(May 6, 2012 at 4:28 pm)DeeTee Wrote: Then expect no respect in return.

Fine with me. I'm quite accustomed to getting no respect from believers. I've been on other religious forums where I have been insulted and disrespected. But, on those sites, you're required to "respect" the buffoonish beliefs of the brainwashed. Otherwise, you get banned. And "respect" means you can't even use the word "mythology" to refer to things like the Babble. I much prefer this forum where I don't have to worry about upsetting the sensitivities of some deluded twit.

Quote:Since God's objective is not eternal life here on earth, how do you expect people to join God?

Since "God" is an imaginary being, I don't expect people to "join" him.

Quote:The Bible is very clear--it is appointed unto man once to die thenthe judgment' Unless you hit the rapture you are going to die, it is part of the rules.

Yeah, the Babble has all kind of ridiculous crap in it.

Quote:Science hasn't done a thing.

Well, except for mapping the human genome, sending spacecraft to explore distant planets, creating the computer I'm typing on, creating lifelike artificial limbs, performing organ transplants, splitting the atom, curing smallpox, polio, diptheria, etc, etc.... (I could go on for pages)

Quote:God given intelligence,

Then why do we have people who are mentally retarded? I guess "God" decided not to give them as much intelligence as he gave others.

Quote: God created mathematics, physics, etc.

Newton created calculus. Euclid created geometry. Stop giving your imaginary friend credit for what PEOPLE have accomplished.

Quote: God given will,

Huh?

Quote: God provided thenatural resources to make the rockets andon it goes.

Baseless assertion. You have any evidence to support this claim?

Quote:Science hasn't done one thing as science as a being does not exist but is run by those who were granted their abilities by God.

This sentence is quite rambling and makes no sense.