(November 15, 2014 at 12:24 am)Esquilax Wrote: No, Archaeopteryx is the missing link in the dinosaur to bird chain; dinosaurs and reptiles are on different prongs of the classification system. They aren't even in the same class, let alone anything of more specificity.

Dinosaurs were reptiles, dude. When you made the post, it insulted my intelligence because I could of SWORE I was taught that dinosaurs were reptiles as a kid, and I even remember zoologists being so eager to tell kids that dinosaurs are still alive today, and showing kids pictures of crocodiles/alligators as proof...and crocs and alligators ARE reptiles.

So according to this website (and myself), your bullshit distinction is irrelevant http://www.factmonster.com/dk/encycloped...saurs.html

So for you to sit there and try to make the distinction between the two is disingenuous. But then again, it doesn't matter anyway, because even if the claim was that the archaeopteryx was the missing link between dinosaur's and birds (as opposed to reptiles), that would STILL be all speculation on the part of the evolutionist for reasons I've already mentioned.

(November 15, 2014 at 12:24 am)Esquilax Wrote: I mentioned this in my debate post, and evidently it didn't rub off on you any. If dinosaurs and reptiles are really in the same "kind" to you, maybe it's a good thing you got booted out of our debate, since at that point "kinds" evidently have no resemblance to anything within our understanding of biology and out classifications of organisms, meaning it really would be a useless quibble to have.

I wasn't fazed by anything that you said, in fact, I was just getting warmed up...so if I did get booted (didn't know that I did, but anyway), that actually saved your ass.

But anyway...dinosaurs were a "kind" of reptile..just like a dog is a "kind" of mammal. Same thing. And again, we've never observed organisms make these macro-level changes that the archae had supposedly made....so what do we have? We have an alleged process that is said to conveniently have occurred long before anyone was around to see it, and the next change will conveniently take place long after everyone living today WON'T be around to see it.

No one has ever observed this large scale changes...you simply have to accept by faith that it occurred, as the entire theory is based on lies, speculations, and unsupported claims. You can believe it all you want, but it isn't science.

Raphanobrassica. We've observed not only the genesis of species, but also genus. No faith is required (and it wouldn't be helpful or operative in any way in any case).

You, are a "kind" of fish. Handy word you've got there, I think I'll keep it.

(November 15, 2014 at 10:14 am)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 12:24 am)Esquilax Wrote: No, Archaeopteryx is the missing link in the dinosaur to bird chain; dinosaurs and reptiles are on different prongs of the classification system. They aren't even in the same class, let alone anything of more specificity.

Dinosaurs were reptiles, dude.

No, they weren't, dude. Read a book.

Quote:When you made the post, it insulted my intelligence because I could of SWORE I was taught that dinosaurs were reptiles as a kid, and I even remember zoologists being so eager to tell kids that dinosaurs are still alive today, and showing kids pictures of crocodiles/alligators as proof...and crocs and alligators ARE reptiles.

*could have sworn

Maybe your teacher was wrong, maybe you misunderstood, maybe your memory is faulty; all the same, dinosaurs were not reptiles.

Quote:So according to this website (and myself), your bullshit distinction is irrelevant http://www.factmonster.com/dk/encycloped...saurs.html

That web site says no such thing.

Quote:So for you to sit there and try to make the distinction between the two is disingenuous. But then again, it doesn't matter anyway, because even if the claim was that the archaeopteryx was the missing link between dinosaur's and birds (as opposed to reptiles), that would STILL be all speculation on the part of the evolutionist for reasons I've already mentioned.

The distinction is quite real; you are being incredibly stupid.

Quote:But anyway...dinosaurs were a "kind" of reptile..just like a dog is a "kind" of mammal. Same thing.

No, dinosaurs and reptiles are in entirely different classes. Not the same thing at all.

Quote:And again, we've never observed organisms make these macro-level changes that the archae had supposedly made....so what do we have? We have an alleged process that is said to conveniently have occurred long before anyone was around to see it, and the next change will conveniently take place long after everyone living today WON'T be around to see it.

No one has ever observed this large scale changes...you simply have to accept by faith that it occurred, as the entire theory is based on lies, speculations, and unsupported claims. You can believe it all you want, but it isn't science.

We see it in the DNA. Read a fucking book.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:09 am)Chas Wrote: Read a fucking book.

He already does. Just THAT one

(November 15, 2014 at 10:14 am)His_Majesty Wrote: You can believe it all you want, but it isn't science.

Unfortunately what you regard as 'science' is irrelevant seeing as you obviously have no clue or grasp over it.

I think it's time to stop making decisions buddy, ok?

POE. Has to be. I mean, it's obvious to everyone that HM doesn't know the first thing about the science he's arguing against, but to outright lie and utilise fiction to justify your arguments is just so silly.

How do people like this survive in RL? I mean, it just makes you wonder how someone with such a terrible grasp of reality is able to function on a day to day basis.

Just makes you realise how dumb some of us humans really are.

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity or Greed, Fidel.

@Madge: serious question, if you'll indulge. What is science to you? What do you think it means, how does it work, how do you recognise what is science and what isn't? Thanks.

(November 15, 2014 at 10:14 am)His_Majesty Wrote: Dinosaurs were reptiles, dude. When you made the post, it insulted my intelligence because I could of SWORE I was taught that dinosaurs were reptiles as a kid, and I even remember zoologists being so eager to tell kids that dinosaurs are still alive today, and showing kids pictures of crocodiles/alligators as proof...and crocs and alligators ARE reptiles.

Do you know anything about cladistics? Our knowledge of science has kind of advanced since you were a kid, and the fact that you think it hasn't says volumes about your understanding of the topic. Dinosaurs are in a different clade to modern reptiles, and so are crocodiles and alligators. In fact, crocodiles and alligators have even more subclauses in their classification than dinosaurs do.

Quote:So according to this website (and myself), your bullshit distinction is irrelevant http://www.factmonster.com/dk/encycloped...saurs.html

Figures. While I get my facts from actual scientific sources, like biology textbooks and so on, you go to what seems to be a FAQ resource for kids that, barring a single oblique reference, says nothing about dinosaurs being reptiles.

It's like I said in the debate; I fit my conclusions to the facts, and you go looking for any facts- no matter how the source will make you look- to fit your conclusions.

Quote:So for you to sit there and try to make the distinction between the two is disingenuous. But then again, it doesn't matter anyway, because even if the claim was that the archaeopteryx was the missing link between dinosaur's and birds (as opposed to reptiles), that would STILL be all speculation on the part of the evolutionist for reasons I've already mentioned.

So, you're not aware of the feathered dinosaurs, then? We've found some of them, nice little transitional there. Oh, but that's right: you think that just straight out asserting "that's not a transitional form!" counts as a rebuttal, for some reason.

Well: "that's not an argument!"

Quote:I wasn't fazed by anything that you said, in fact, I was just getting warmed up...so if I did get booted (didn't know that I did, but anyway), that actually saved your ass.

Your confidence is hilarious, given that literally nobody who saw the debate actually agrees with you. You put a lot of stock in your own assertions, but the fact that you weren't fazed says nothing about the efficacy of my arguments, just in your ability to properly take them in.

Quote:But anyway...dinosaurs were a "kind" of reptile..just like a dog is a "kind" of mammal. Same thing. And again, we've never observed organisms make these macro-level changes that the archae had supposedly made....so what do we have? We have an alleged process that is said to conveniently have occurred long before anyone was around to see it, and the next change will conveniently take place long after everyone living today WON'T be around to see it.

And as I pointed out, "kind" is not present anywhere in the real definition of evolution. Species is, and we have plenty of examples of new species coming into being via evolution. As far as I can tell, "kind" is just a manufactured term you made up that has no connection to what evolution describes at all; it's literally irrelevant to the process. You say that evolution can't happen because you haven't witnessed a change in "kinds" but evolution doesn't say anything about kinds, and what evolution does describe does actually happen, verifiably. Saying evolution isn't real because of kinds is the same as saying gravity isn't real because of balloons; you don't get to make up a new part of the definition of something and then pretend that it's always been there. You made up this kinds thing, it was never a part of the evolutionary definition, and therefore is not something that needs to be discussed.

I am, however, interested in the fact that you just said mammals are their own "kind," that dogs are a part of. But in the debate, you said that humans were part of the man"kind." Humans are mammals though, so wouldn't that make them a part of the mammal "kind" too? Do kinds overlap? Do you even have an actual definition for what a kind is, and if so why haven't you shared it with us?

You see, everyone? He's got no clear definition, and his idea of what a kind is expands and contracts wildly whenever he needs it to: in the debate human was a kind, making kind synonymous with species, but now that it's convenient for him mammal is a kind, making it synonymous with class. He's just lying through his teeth.

Quote:No one has ever observed this large scale changes...you simply have to accept by faith that it occurred, as the entire theory is based on lies, speculations, and unsupported claims. You can believe it all you want, but it isn't science.

Given that you evidently made "kinds" up, that it has no real connection to science, and that you have no idea what it means beyond what you need it to in the moment, it's not really a legitimate objection, is it?

And no, we haven't observed large scale changes because evolution doesn't require them. What we have observed is many small changes accumulating over time, and you still haven't bothered demonstrating this mystical force you believe in that stops them from adding up into a change in species.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Your difference of opinion is with your own holy book, and the theologians who've explicated your religion.

My "own holy book" is the word of the living God.

Then you'd better get with the program and stop contradicting the god you claim to worship. I don't think he's going to be happy with you.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Yet you're defending the contrary view. When you arrive at a contradiction, one of your premises is flawed.

Give me a contradiction.

I already have. It's your eternal soul at stake, or so you claim, so you can go back and reread my point about Matthew and perfection at your own leisure.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I.E., give your money to the robber "of your own free will".

See, there is that "opinion" thing again, Parker. Because the 2 billion Christians in this world, we don't feel like we are being robbed. I am sorry you feel that way.

Stockholm Syndrome.

Just because you don't "feel" your free will has been taken by force, that doesn't mean that it hasn't. Any time obeisance is extracted by force, free will has been abrogated; and that's not an opinion; that's definitional.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I.E., refuse to surrender your money, and get murdered.

The "money" you are referring to is actually the robber's money.

So you say. That's your opinion ... offered here after you've surrendered your money.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: You really haven't thought about what I've written here.

I thought about it..just ain't buying it.

You don't have any money to do so.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: So, you'd find the robber not guilty ... got it.

God only wants what is his..and if you take something from him, he will take something from you.

And given his alleged omnipotence, that pretty much negates free will, now doesn't it?

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Tell me again about your so-called morality.

Jesus Christ.

lol, the turn the other cheek guy ... or the bringing-a-sword guy? The love-thy-neighbor guy, or the hate-your-family guy?

Wait, this mishmash of yours explains why you're unable to see moral issues like the theft of free will clearly.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Rather than preaching, answer the point, or admit your incompetence to do so.

I don't know what answer I can give you that will be satisfactory to you...so it all comes down to whether or not Christianity is right for you...you know what it is, you know what it is about...and you freely reject it. Point blank, period.

You know about Jesus, you know about Christian theology...and you reject it..and now you are on here asking questions as if that is the one question keeping you from being a Christian.

No, I'm interrogating you because you, in your arrogance, think to lecture others about your take on the truth, one which in your own god's words you are advised to be humble and meek -- you who take on the name "Your_Majesty", you who refuse to consider any interpretation but your own.

I'm interrogating you here because your hypocrisy deserves it.

As for what answer I would accept, that would be evidence.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The bottom line is this...according to Christian theology, Jesus died on the cross for your sins, etc. Either accept it, or reject it. You've rejected it, no one forced you to reject it...and not only have you rejected it, but you've argued against it...sounds like you are free to do what the hell you want to do...so don't come crying to me talking about how you don't have free will.

I'm not "crying" to you, as anyone with half-a-brain can see. I'm making a point about a weakness in your reason, which is that compelling another's belief under the threat of eternal torment is not free will. I reject your god, as I reject all others, as you reject all others ... wait for it ... freely.

You see, I refuse to live in fear.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...sh/perfect

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...lish/mercy

Omnibenevolence does not mean omnimerciful...I don't know what part of that you aren't understanding...but taking that in to account will help clean up some of that mess you have going on over there.

And for about the fourth time, I'm not saying that perfect mercy is based on omnibenevolence; it's based on the definition of perfection.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: You're arguing against it in this thread. Are you so uneducated you don't realize this?

I guess I am the first Christian apologist to argue against Christianity

Not at all. If I had a dime for every Christian with your apparent incomprehension of the contradictions in your own theology, I could buy nine thousand internets.

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Those are intellectual disciplines, not evidentiary material.

They are intellectual disciplines, and when used properly regarding the right subject matter, can give a person good reasons to believe in God.

Which is not evidence, either.

Give evidence of your god.

Worked for me.

[http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/evidencequote='Parkers Tan' pid='796383' dateline='1415976013']
Do you need me to look up "evidence" for you as well, or can we trust you to learn how to google these things sometime this year? [/quote]

Don't flatter yourself. I only asked you to define the term because it seemed as if you were committing a non-sequitur, so I wanted to see whether or not you had a different definition of the term than I had...and come to find out, you didn't, you were just WRONG in that regard, that's all. [/quote]

I'd suggest you look it up, then. The first entry in OED is "the available body of facts"; only the third is "signs", or "indications" -- which is pretty weak shit for such an allegedly powerful deity, anyway.

It turns out, your definition, such as can be made of it, is vapid.

I'll wait while you look that word up.

Parkers Tan Wrote: Obviously. He actually said some intelligent things here and there ... in stark contrast to you.
He probably said more intelligent things than Charles Darwin too.[/quote]

.... but not about evolution.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...h/evidence

(November 14, 2014 at 5:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Because the Universe seems to be a closed system ... Einstein.

Any more questions? Because my job is done here.

Yet the human body is deteriorating just like the universe.

It might have something to do with the fact that the human body in inside the Universe.

That still doesn't mean that the human body is a closed system, Newton.

Your inability to admit simple error is much more revealing than you realize.

Why is Madge arguing that dinosaurs were a "kind" of reptile anyway? I thought there was no fossil record.