Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 27th March 2017, 04:37

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Heated debate on evolution with brother
#81
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
The Noticeable Embiggening
I am John Cena's hip-hop album.
Reply
#82
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(11th January 2017, 10:48)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Yeah it was called the big bang n a kind of mockingly "What so everything just exploded out of nothing?" kind of way.... just like creationists retards are all like "What so you think we're all the products of chance?"

Giving rise to idiots who are somehow able to breathe and ask things like "where did the rocks come from to make the bang?" and "if there was a Big Bang, how come it didn't kill the aliens?"
Please read and abide by the Forum Rules, available here.


(21st June 2016, 07:31)Homeless Nutter Wrote: When someone is knocked on the head, they may see stars. That doesn't mean we should rely on their testimony, when studying astrophysics...
Reply
#83
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(11th January 2017, 10:49)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: The Noticeable Embiggening

Why, thank you!
Please read and abide by the Forum Rules, available here.


(21st June 2016, 07:31)Homeless Nutter Wrote: When someone is knocked on the head, they may see stars. That doesn't mean we should rely on their testimony, when studying astrophysics...
Reply
#84
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(8th January 2017, 03:15)snowtracks Wrote:  Can't have cell nucleus developed without a cell membrane and cell wall (extremely complex has nine layers and has openings for exits and entrances which do not allow everything to enter) to protect the nucleus and the membrane/wall can't form without something inside. Can't have a brain without thought (by the way what was the first thought? must have been quite an event) and vice versa. The compound eye appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion. It came as a package deal. What good is a retina by itself? Or ocular muscles without a lens? Yet, according to Darwin it could not come as a package. If it did, it would violate the very criteria he established for his theory that living structures had to be capable of evolving in small incremental steps. No progression of eye designs from simple to complex has ever been produced in the natural or fossil world.

Yeah like some other members mentioned "why don't you read a science book? why don't you look at the evidence?" and the difference between me (or any other rational person) and you is that I take the world as it is, I rely on observable evidence; while you have an agenda. In your case it's that Jesus rose from the dead. You start with that foundational belief then conveniently sidestep logic and reason backward to specific beliefs. Everything has to subordinate so that your fundamentalism can be untouched. Therefore since Jesus divinity makes perfect sense to you, evolution can't because that is ultimately contradictory to divinity of Jesus.

Therefore you have to ask yourself why do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that it wasn't a case that people lied, someone ransacked the tomb, the witnesses were unreliable (of course if Jesus even existed)?
Seriously, What evidence would prove you that Jesus was not divine/rise from the dead?

That's why when you mostly talk to religious people that deny evolution, it is rarely about the evolution itself and showing them the evidence, rather it's about their bias, their core belief on which their worldview stands on.
Reply
#85
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(12th January 2017, 02:51)Fake Messiah Wrote:
(8th January 2017, 03:15)snowtracks Wrote:  Can't have cell nucleus developed without a cell membrane and cell wall (extremely complex has nine layers and has openings for exits and entrances which do not allow everything to enter) to protect the nucleus and the membrane/wall can't form without something inside. Can't have a brain without thought (by the way what was the first thought? must have been quite an event) and vice versa. The compound eye appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion. It came as a package deal. What good is a retina by itself? Or ocular muscles without a lens? Yet, according to Darwin it could not come as a package. If it did, it would violate the very criteria he established for his theory that living structures had to be capable of evolving in small incremental steps. No progression of eye designs from simple to complex has ever been produced in the natural or fossil world.

Yeah like some other members mentioned "why don't you read a science book? why don't you look at the evidence?" and the difference between me (or any other rational person) and you is that I take the world as it is, I rely on observable evidence; while you have an agenda. In your case it's that Jesus rose from the dead. You start with that foundational belief then conveniently sidestep logic and reason backward to specific beliefs. Everything has to subordinate so that your fundamentalism can be untouched. Therefore since Jesus divinity makes perfect sense to you, evolution can't because that is ultimately contradictory to divinity of Jesus.

Therefore you have to ask yourself why do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that it wasn't a case that people lied, someone ransacked the tomb, the witnesses were unreliable (of course if Jesus even existed)?
Seriously, What evidence would prove you that Jesus was not divine/rise from the dead?

That's why when you mostly talk to religious people that deny evolution, it is rarely about the evolution itself and showing them the evidence, rather it's about their bias, their core belief on which their worldview stands on. reply is non-sequitur to the topic.
Reply is non-sequitur to posting. Somehow the 'Resurrection' got brought-up, probably an agenda.
The universe, because it was created by God, possesses objective meaning, purpose, and significance.
Reply
#86
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(13th January 2017, 02:04)snowtracks Wrote: Reply is non-sequitur to posting. Somehow the 'Resurrection' got brought-up, probably an agenda.

So Jesus resurrection is non sequitur to your life? You do not base your beliefs on the Bible including the origin of human species?
Reply
#87
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(3rd January 2017, 05:01)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If nothing else works, get a dozen or so trilobite fossils (you can find them fairly cheaply online), put them in a pillowcase and beat your brother soundly about the head and shoulders until he sees the light.

Boru

Funny thing is, you don't have to try very hard to "dismantle the Christian belief." You just have to sort of look around you and observe.

operator
Do unto others as they do unto you.

http://www.ChurchOfSatan.com
Reply
#88
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(12th January 2017, 02:51)Fake Messiah Wrote:
(8th January 2017, 03:15)snowtracks Wrote:  Can't have cell nucleus developed without a cell membrane and cell wall (extremely complex has nine layers and has openings for exits and entrances which do not allow everything to enter) to protect the nucleus and the membrane/wall can't form without something inside. Can't have a brain without thought (by the way what was the first thought? must have been quite an event) and vice versa. The compound eye appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion. It came as a package deal. What good is a retina by itself? Or ocular muscles without a lens? Yet, according to Darwin it could not come as a package. If it did, it would violate the very criteria he established for his theory that living structures had to be capable of evolving in small incremental steps. No progression of eye designs from simple to complex has ever been produced in the natural or fossil world.

Yeah like some other members mentioned "why don't you read a science book? why don't you look at the evidence?" and the difference between me (or any other rational person) and you is that I take the world as it is, I rely on observable evidence; while you have an agenda. In your case it's that Jesus rose from the dead. You start with that foundational belief then conveniently sidestep logic and reason backward to specific beliefs. Everything has to subordinate so that your fundamentalism can be untouched. Therefore since Jesus divinity makes perfect sense to you, evolution can't because that is ultimately contradictory to divinity of Jesus.

Therefore you have to ask yourself why do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that it wasn't a case that people lied, someone ransacked the tomb, the witnesses were unreliable (of course if Jesus even existed)?
Seriously, What evidence would prove you that Jesus was not divine/rise from the dead?

That's why when you mostly talk to religious people that deny evolution, it is rarely about the evolution itself and showing them the evidence, rather it's about their bias, their core belief on which their worldview stands on.
No one has come close to showing that even the simplest living entity could possibly assemble itself.
The universe, because it was created by God, possesses objective meaning, purpose, and significance.
Reply
#89
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(11th February 2017, 20:23)snowtracks Wrote: No one has come close to showing that even the simplest living entity could possibly assemble itself.
Clap

Can I try, too?
No one has come close to showing that even the simplest god could possibly assemble itself.
Reply
#90
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(17th January 2017, 08:47)AceBoogie Wrote:
(3rd January 2017, 05:01)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If nothing else works, get a dozen or so trilobite fossils (you can find them fairly cheaply online), put them in a pillowcase and beat your brother soundly about the head and shoulders until he sees the light.

Boru

Funny thing is, you don't have to try very hard to "dismantle the Christian belief." You just have to sort of look around you and observe.

operator
Fossils support Biblical Creation. An example with be the Trilobites. They appeared suddenly without evidence of transitional forms. Naturalism propounds something like this:  "Trilobite Origins and Extinction: Trilobites probably arose from a soft bodied ancestor in the Pre-Cambrian. The first actual trilobites fossils found are from the Cambrian"*

The Cambrian period corresponds to the 5'th day ('day' here is a long but definite period of time'). Some 500 mya, the number of Earth’s animal phyla (a phylum designates life-forms sharing the same basic body plan) increased dramatically. Somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of all animal phyla ever to exist appeared.

So what's being proposed here is 'probably' a soft-bodied ancestor evolved to a fossil exoskeleton arthropod; however, there is no soft-bodied specimen, nor any somewhat fossilized specimen that can be presented. Without the fossils, evolution is just a proposal.
*http://www.fossilguy.com/gallery/invert/arthropod/trilobite/.
The universe, because it was created by God, possesses objective meaning, purpose, and significance.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why Debate a Teenager? Goosebump 16 1304 25th April 2016, 11:10
Last Post: Aegon
  Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false Rob216 206 12915 10th November 2014, 14:02
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Free Will - A new angle on an old debate ManMachine 3 1076 11th June 2013, 19:22
Last Post: ManMachine
  Flying in the face of the organic debate Justtristo 1 1022 24th April 2013, 21:03
Last Post: Khemikal
  Intelligent design type evolution vs naturalism type evolution. MysticKnight 59 20532 6th April 2013, 17:12
Last Post: Khemikal



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)