James to thread. Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right.

[Diode]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/27/pope-francis-evolution_n_6057378.html

My, my.. isn't that something.

VERITAS

[Hush]

Lol take that God u ain't make shit

[uh-oh]

hmmm

[veritas]

So the pope speaks for Christianity? For the Bible?

Cmon man.

this is the new world order pope and you know it.

he speaks as the dragon.

Plus evolution and the big bang do not rule out God's existence...so what is y9ur poiunt?

[Diode]

So the pope speaks for Christianity? For the Bible?

Cmon man.

this is the new world order pope and you know it.

he speaks as the dragon.

Plus evolution and the big bang do not rule out God's existence...so what is y9ur poiunt?

you had come out as an ardent ID fan in previous threads.

plus i know how catholics get southern baptists all riled up. but your last name is murphy, which implies catholicism. conflicted, james?

[veritas]

I am an intelligent design advocate meaning no matter how this happened God had his hand in it.

i do not believe in Darwinian evolution in it'd strictest sense I.e. that with enough time one oraganism will become an entirely new organism.

I was raised catholic. I left it becuase it is nonsense. I am not a baptist either.

[veritas]

I also understand the gap. And that this has already happened. Too soon.

[Dominate]

Plus evolution and the big bang do not rule out God's existence

You were unaware of this the last time there was an evolution thread.

That is encouraging.

[veritas]

oh I was? Because I am pretty sure that no one really understood my point of view, plus had already decided what I believed, while simultaneoulsy only parrotting things that made no sense and proving that they know nothing.

fair?

[Hush]

No god and no lisp
Having a bad week huh bAldo

[veritas]

You were unaware of this the last time there was an evolution thread.

That is encouraging.

for a man to come from a monkey is nonsense. for a monkey to come from a bird is nonsense. for a bird to come from a fish is nonsense. etc.

This is the strict darwinian evolution that I find foolish. However, God could have easily made this existence where creatures "adapt" over time. In fact, humans evolve mentally (at least some do). Are you not far more evolved than you were when you were 3 years old?

However to say that a man evolved from a monkey is ludacris.

evolution and atheism are the new religions of the world too.

[veritas]

No god and no lisp
Having a bad week huh bAldo


There is a God. You not only have a lisp, you have an effeminate lisp. you little girl.

[Diode]

for a man to come from a monkey is nonsense. for a monkey to come from a bird is nonsense. for a bird to come from a fish is nonsense. etc.

This is the strict darwinian evolution that I find foolish. However, God could have easily made this existence where creatures "adapt" over time. In fact, humans evolve mentally (at least some do). Are you not far more evolved than you were when you were 3 years old?

However to say that a man evolved from a monkey is ludacris.

evolution and atheism are the new religions of the world too.

you have no idea what evolution is.

humans have not evolved for thousands and thousands of years.

[veritas]

tell me about evolution.

[Diode]

tell me about evolution.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

You can read, yes?

Start here. When you are done, I will offer additional reading to get you caught up on the past 150+ years since that was published.

[veritas]

I said tell me about evolution.

also.....when exactly did man stop evolving?

[Witty]

Man has not stopped evolving though living in an environment we have created to suit our current needs may prove to be slowing the process.

[Batty]

This will just turn into another one of those discussions that end in a clusterfuck.

But yo, I didn't listen to Catholics for advice before and I'm not just gonna start up now.

[veritas]

Man has not stopped evolving though living in an environment we have created to suit our current needs may prove to be slowing the process.

Diode says that man has Fox. Just say8ng.


yall can't even get on the same page while talm bout i dont get it.

Lolzord

[Witty]

Diode says that man has Fox. Just say8ng.


yall can't even get on the same page while talm bout i dont get it.

Lolzord

That is not what he said, he said humans have not significantly changed for thousands of years, which is correct...we are basically the same as cavemen, other than changes in height, slight changes to body shape and life expectancy...we are on the same page.

[Witty]

If you insist upon refusing to read up on the matter and instead intend to decide whether you agree or not based on a discussion with some guys online, any conclusion you come to will be ill informed. I am no expert by any means...look at the evidence, read the papers, come to an informed conclusion.

[Dominate]

for a man to come from a monkey is nonsense. for a monkey to come from a bird is nonsense. for a bird to come from a fish is nonsense. etc.

This is the strict darwinian evolution that I find foolish. However, God could have easily made this existence where creatures "adapt" over time. In fact, humans evolve mentally (at least some do). Are you not far more evolved than you were when you were 3 years old?

However to say that a man evolved from a monkey is ludacris.

evolution and atheism are the new religions of the world too.

If you're going to be so staunchly opposed to the theory of Evolution you really should learn what it is.

Man did not evolve from monkeys. That is not in contention.

Do you believe that one of those hairless mexican dogs could "evolve from", say, a st. Bernard?

[veritas]

I know what evolution is.

none of yall can agree.

What did man evolve from?

[Witty]

I know what evolution is.

none of yall can agree.

What did man evolve from?
We are in agreement, as is pretty much the entire scientific community.

Your description of what you believe evolution to be displays a basic lack of understanding.

The question 'What did man evolve from?' is also a silly one, displaying again a lack of understanding...man evolved from many things, are you asking what was the previous stage in our evolution? There have been many stages, many species, before man came along...not just one.

[veritas]

what did man last evolve from.

[Diode]

what did man last evolve from.

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

Though you are jumping ahead. You haven't even bothered with Darwin yet.

[veritas]

dead at yall thinking that I don't understand evolution. In fact, all you have proved is that yall don't. You can't even agree.

I am merely asking a question. A simple question. Please answer it o ye of enlightenment.

What did man evolve from?

http://www.2christ.org/face/

^ manbearpig 2 thread?

[Destroyer]

a common ancestor of both man, and the chimp
homo erectus, homo habilis, etc

[Destroyer]

take a fucking class for fucks sake

[Diode]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1mBPjrBxxo

one of my favorite bands of all time have a response to veritas in this thread

[veritas]

so according to destroyer our ancestor is a monkey right? and according to Diode man has stopped evolving and according to witty he has not.


Confirm or Deny?

[Destroyer]

uh, common ancestor homie
not monkeys
never monkeys

[veritas]

uh, common ancestor homie
not monkeys
never monkeys

so are you saying that humans have nothing in common with monkeys?

[TYSON]

The Huffington tho???

[Diode]

so according to destroyer our ancestor is a monkey right? and according to Diode man has stopped evolving and according to witty he has not.


Confirm or Deny?

never said he has "stopped" evolving. your understanding of evolution would make an 11 year old blush. you equated evolution to aging. you are ignorant.

here, stupid:

evolution takes a long time. evolution requires significant changes to mitochondrial dna of a species. you going bald and getting fat is not evolution. witty and i agree on this.

"man" (assuming you mean homo sapiens sapiens) did not evolve from a monkey. homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies of an evolutionary line that goes back to primates. evolution is not a direct line.

you are ignorant.

enjoy your ignorance.

[Dominate]

No he is not.

It's not. That. Hard.

You and your siblings resemble each other ("have things in common") because you came from the same parents. But you didn't come from one another.

[veritas]

This is great.

Ok so, we come from the same parents, who are monkeys, but we are not monkeys...right?

[Diode]

This is great.

Ok so, we come from the same parents, who are monkeys, but we are not monkeys...right?

i have a gift for you:

http://www.slideshare.net/kidkhaos7/9-logical-fallacies

[Destroyer]

viruses prove evolution is real by evolving in an amount of time we can observe
the larger scale can't be directly observed which, judging by your choice of religion, shouldn't present a problem for you

[Dominate]

Parents are not Monkeys. In this analogy you and the monkeys are brothers.

[veritas]

never said he has "stopped" evolving.



you have no idea what evolution is.

humans have not evolved for thousands and thousands of years.

[Diode]

the larger scale can't be directly observed which, judging by your choice of religion, shouldn't present a problem for you

ether.

laughed out loud.

rep.

[Diode]

"have not" - an action has not taken place, but may be in process

"stopped" - ceased all action

you should get a refund on that university of phoenix degree.

[veritas]

We are in agreement, as is pretty much the entire scientific community.




pump brakes. errrrrrrrrrrrrt. The scientific community changes like every 20 years bro. The world used to be flat, dinosaurs use to be repitles and now they have feathers. fair?

[Witty]

Veritas please.

I do not believe you are this oblivious so I can only conclude you are being wilfully ignorant to elicit a response.

[Diode]

pump brakes. errrrrrrrrrrrrt. The scientific community changes like every 20 years bro. The world used to be flat, dinosaurs use to be repitles and now they have feathers. fair?

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

[veritas]

"have not" - currently not in the process of executing an action

"stopped" - ceased all action

you should get a refund on that university of phoenix degree.

I learned about semantics there too.

go cook a lonely steak to perfection, take pictures, and eat it by yourself faggot.

Tell me: what did your couch evolve from? What did man evolve from?

I am still waiting for an answer from this, that all of you enlightened souls can agree upon.

call me.

[Diode]

I learned about semantics there too.

go cook a lonely steak to perfection, take pictures, and eat it by yourself faggot.

Tell me: what did your couch evolve from? What did man evolve from?

I am still waiting for an answer from this, that all of you enlightened souls can agree upon.

call me.

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

[veritas]

can someone please just answer me the simple question....

I will make it even simpler:


where did man come from?

[Witty]

pump brakes. errrrrrrrrrrrrt. The scientific community changes like every 20 years bro. The world used to be flat, dinosaurs use to be repitles and now they have feathers. fair?

No scientific community ever thought the world was flat, that was never a widely held belief. In order for scientific consensus to change there must be evidence to necessitate the change in thought, you have no evidence for your stance and therefore the 'science is wrong sometimes' argument is irrelevant and completely pointless.

[Destroyer]

he evolved from a man-like ancestor, what part of that don't you get?

[veritas]

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

this might blow your mind, but I knew you were going to post that, and I did it becuase you and all of the others stay doing it to me whenever we have these talks.

NETCEES! IF I AM SO WRONG, JUST PROVE ME WRONG! THAT IS ALL. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

[Witty]

Veritas stop being dumb plz.

[veritas]

he evolved from a man-like ancestor, what part of that don't you get?

man-like? what is the like part? what did the like part evolve from?

[veritas]

Veritas stop being dumb plz.

I am being clever witty. For the glory of my God.

[Diode]

can someone please just answer me the simple question....

I will make it even simpler:


where did man come from?

we going to go through the whole lexicon of fallacies?

here:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

your question is answered there. you do not understand what evolution is. a species does not suddenly one day become something else.

but your magic book tells you it must be so! gasp!

[veritas]

No scientific community ever thought the world was flat, that was never a widely held belief. In order for scientific consensus to change there must be evidence to necessitate the change in thought, you have no evidence for your stance and therefore the 'science is wrong sometimes' argument is irrelevant and completely pointless.

so has science ever proved evolution? I thought it was just a theory?

[veritas]

we going to go through the whole lexicon of fallacies?

here:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

your question is answered there. you do not understand what evolution is. a species does not suddenly one day become something else.

but your magic book tells you it must be so! gasp!

answer the question:

Where did man come from?

and I can combat all those "peking man etc" that they were hoaxes. just saying.

I also wouldn't put alot of faith in carbon dating either.

[Diode]

so has science ever proved evolution? I thought it was just a theory?

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

stick to your topic.

[Diode]

answer the question:

Where did man come from?

and I can combat all those "peking man etc" that they were hoaxes. just saying.

Current data suggest that modern humans evolved from archaic humans primarily in East Africa. A 195,000 year old fossil from the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people

[Witty]

so has science ever proved evolution? I thought it was just a theory?

As is gravity...the scientific use of the word theory is not how we use it...it does not mean unproven, and yes, evolution has been proven, quite some time ago.

I could lay out every piece of evidence and every paper on the subject and you would disregard it without contemplation because you hae already made your mind up so you are pointless to debate with, if you want to know the answers to your basic questions do some research, you don't want that though, you want to troll and purposely misunderstand basic information...which is old.

[Destroyer]

it's like this nigga lives in a world without google

[veritas]

here is where it gets too deep for you. but first

but your magic book tells you it must be so! gasp! <-- ad hominem.


The Bible plainly speaks of a world before this. I have no problem with SPECULATING THAT there may have been a man like race way in the "past"

I mean someone greater than us had to have built the pyramids etc.

BUT THE HUMANS WE SEE NOW WERE MADE IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN, THEY DID NOT COME FROM MONKEYS.

It is possible that God used some of the same gene codes and just made us a more advanced model.


Fair? The point is that I have studied both sides, I agree with myself becuase I know what I believe.

none of yall can even agree.


FACT: it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God. IT actually takes more faith.

I will be happy to educate you to this if you would like.

[veritas]

As is gravity...the scientific use of the word theory is not how we use it...it does not mean unproven, and yes, evolution has been proven, quite some time ago.



have you ever seen anything evolve? do you know anyone who has personally?

[veritas]

is this how one googles bros?

The Ape-men Frauds
The "A" in the acronym FACE represents Ape-men frauds, fakes, fantasies and fiction. In other words the ape-men that have been set forth by evolutionists should be an embarrassment to them as well. By the way, if you want to study up on this on your own time from a secular perspective, there's a good book out. It's called "The Bone Peddlers" by William Fix and I highly recommend that because from a secular perspective he demolishes the ape-men frauds. From a Christian perspective, a great book by Marvin Lubenow called "Bones of Contention" published by Baker Bookhouse.
At one time it was thought that we came from the Neanderthal. Neanderthals were discovered from 1848 to 1856 and for years they were considered to be ape-men. But now we know, there's no argument here, that they're just plain ordinary people.

And then, of course, the ape-man that I introduced to you early on, Java man. Java man was discovered by a Dutchman. I'm a little embarrassed by that because I'm a Dutchman myself. His name was Eugene Dubois. The bones were found in 1891-1892 on the Indonesian Island of Java in Southeast Asia along the banks of the Solo River. And there was an interesting assortment. He found a leg bone, a skullcap, a jaw fragment and three teeth. And that's what he concocted Java man from. Interestingly enough some of the teeth were old and some young. The bones belonged to ape, female and male.

It was an interesting conglomeration and the reason that people didn't catch on to it is because the find of Dubois was kept from scholars for about 30 years. He also, of course, withheld the discovery of modern human remains, which were found in the same stratum as Java man. Of course that would have ruined his claims that Java man was the ancestor of modern day humans. Finally, enough pressure was placed on him that the actual bones were allowed to be examined and the discrepancies were found. And eventually, enlightened America as well as the world found out that this was a hoax.

Unfortunately hoaxes die hard. Time Magazine ran a cover story entitled "How Man Became Man". Richard Leaky is on the cover. It starts off ridiculing Christians and Creationists and then goes on to present Java man as though it were fact.

Then, of course, there's Piltdown man. This was a discovery by Dawson in 1912. It was shown to be a hoax in 1953. This is a deliberate fraud. There were obvious file marks on the teeth. Stone tools, supposedly used by Piltdown man were actually shaped by steel instruments. That should have been a dead giveaway. The bone fragments were stained to make them look older and yet despite this in 1915 Doctors Arthur Woodward and Arthur Keith, who were the two most eminent Paleoanthropologists in England declared that Eoanthropous, another name for Piltdown man, represents "more closely than any human form yet discovered the common ancestor from which the Neanderthal and modern types have been derived".

This was just 1915. Now they had a motive. They were later charged with perpetrating the fraud in the first place. Yet this fraud was used for over 40 years to prove to school children that evolution was a fact and all kinds of doctrinal dissertations were based on Piltdown man.

And then of course there's Nebraska man. One tooth found on a farm in Nebraska ... one tooth. But, with a little imagination, the tooth was imagined to be part of a jawbone. The jaw bone part of a skull. The skull part of a skeleton and by the time the story hit the London newspaper, we not only had a picture of Nebraska man but we had a picture of Nebraska mom complete with fur; All from one tooth. Imagine what they could have done had they found a skeleton; my they might have printed a yearbook.

And then there was Peking man. The skulls found in caves outside of Peking, China. To wit Peking man before World War II. There's nothing human about them but they were in good shape. The skulls in the back were bashed in just a hair. Other than that, great shape. Tools were buried in the same area and the deduction was made. Ah-Ha! This must be a tool-using ape. Hence, an ape-man. Great logic, right. No one stopped to consider that the tools might have been used on the apes rather than by the apes. And as a matter of fact, that is precisely why the back of the skulls were bashed in. Because, in that part of the world, monkey brains are a deli***y.

Monkey meat is too tough to eat so what you do is you lop off the head, you bash in the back of the skull, you scoop out the brains and you eat them. By the way if you saw Indiana Jones Temple of Doom, that's what they were having for desert, Peking man on the half shell. So Peking man turns out to be man's meal, not man's ancestor.

And then of course there was Lucy. This is one of my all time favorites ... discovered in Ethiopia by Donald Johansson in 1974. It was dated at being three million years old. It was diagrammed at the very "Y" that separates man from ape. Now Johansson is a humble man and as a humble man he claimed humbly that Lucy was the most important find made by anyone in the history of the entire human race. The media immediately made Johansson, then an assistant professor, a hero. In fact, he got his own institute for human biology at Berkley but there's more to the story. The scientists were not allowed to examine Lucy's bones up until 1982. When they finally did, guess what they found? They found out that you couldn't really tell the difference between Lucy and a rainforest Chimpanzee that you might find in the San Diego Zoo.

I think it would do us well to heed the warning of Charles Oxnard from USC who said to the public "Don't be so gullible" and reminded us of past mistakes like Piltdown and Nebraska man. He said that we ought to be more discerning. Now if he says that, we should be sounding the alarm within the church as well. And I might say that by now mostly everyone other than perhaps Carl Sagan and maybe Phil Donahue know that Lucy is not the missing link.

So really what do we have here when we look at the ape-men frauds, fakes and fantasies? When we look at this fiction, here's what we find out. Neanderthal man turns out to be an ordinary human being. Java man, nothing but a couple of bones in a gravel pit along with some human skulls. Peking man was man's meal. Nebraska man was a pig. To say that humans beings and anthropoids are closely related because they both have ribs is like saying a butterfly and a jumbo jet are closely related because they both have wings.

The point is that there's an ocean of difference between an ape, which can't read and write and a human being who can sing the Hallelujah Chorus and do calculus. The distance between the dumbest human and the smartest ape is the distance of infinity. And I would suggest to you as Christians, that you ought to bone up on some of the ape-men frauds and use the stories on your friend the next time they talk about us evolving from monkeys. Unfortunately buying the lie is devastating. If we're nothing but sophisticated animals, we'll soon begin to act like animals. And if you want to see a perfect case study, look in the public schools of America today.

[Destroyer]

that's how Christians Google, yes

try this one though

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-12-human-ancestor-less-chimp-like-thought.html

[Dominate]

V, I'll answer your line of questions if you'll answer mine. One answer & one question per post.

Humans evolved from single cell organisms, with many intermediate steps which I suspect don't matter because your line of questioning leads to here. Your next question is where did single cell organisms come from, I'd guess. But I'll let you ask before I answer.

Answer mine about the dogs.

[veritas]

V, I'll answer your line of questions if you'll answer mine. One answer & one question per post.

Humans evolved from single cell organisms, with many intermediate steps which I suspect don't matter because your line of questioning leads to here. Your next question is where did single cell organisms come from, I'd guess. But I'll let you ask before I answer.

Answer mine about the dogs.


where did single cell organisms come from?

[veritas]

that's how Christians Google, yes

try this one though

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-12-human-ancestor-less-chimp-like-thought.html

yeah that is a great article which actually helps prove my point. Thank you Jude.

[Fig]

If you flew to the moon, and found all sorts of machinery, you wouldn't assume it to be there without any purpose or reason.

That's why I find it hard to believe we just kinda stumbled our way here, random mutation after random mutation. There's evidence of intelligence all around us.

[veritas]

If you flew to the moon, and found all sorts of machinery, you wouldn't assume it to be there without any purpose or reason.

That's why I find it hard to believe we just kinda stumbled our way here, random mutation after random mutation. There's evidence of intelligence all around us.

good point fig.


Evolution says that we drop a bomb on a forrest and get encyclopedias roflzord.

[Destroyer]

and strangely, all kinds of random mutations happens round us everyday at a molecular level
evolution just brings it up to a macroscopic level

[veritas]

and strangely, all kinds of random mutations happens round us everyday at a molecular level
evolution just brings it up to a macroscopic level

and these random mutations make the organism better or less than the original?

I thought inbreeding was a mutation?

dad?

[Dominate]

where did single cell organisms come from?

Answer my question first.

[Destroyer]

looking at it as a "better" organism is the wrong way
look at it as "better suited for its current environment"

[veritas]

looking at it as a "better" organism is the wrong way
look at it as "better suited for its current environment"

so inbred mutations better suit a trailer park? How come there aren't any X-men living down on Valley rd. bro?

the whole mutation thing is a fail tbh.

try this:

Science is build upon repeatability. Has anyone ever claimed in the entire history of the world to have witnessed something evolve into an entirely new creature>?

[veritas]

Answer my question first.

your question was about can one type of dog become another type of dog? I don't care that is pointless. Ask me if a dog can become a bird and then we will talk.


where did single cell organisms come from?

[Destroyer]

yes, viruses do it all the time

[veritas]

yes, viruses do it all the time

where do the viruses come from? and viruses mutate into other viruses, not viruses mutate into different organisms bro.

[Destroyer]

earlier viruses

[veritas]

and where did they come from?

[Destroyer]

evolution isn't about genesis, VERITAS, it's about progression

[veritas]

evolution isn't about genesis, VERITAS, it's about progression

I thought diode said that humans hadnt evolved in a long time?

[Diode]

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

[Destroyer]

it's a slow process

[veritas]

evolution isn't about genesis, VERITAS, it's about progression

^this sounds like something that would be fonted onto a starbucks barista's apron.

[Diode]

I thought diode said that humans hadnt evolved in a long time?

where did he say anything about homo sapiens sapiens?

[veritas]

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

no. no sir. I am asking a question that you are not answering. I am refusing to waver from it. come at me. where did humans come from?

[Dominate]

your question was about can one type of dog become another type of dog? I don't care that is pointless. Ask me if a dog can become a bird and then we will talk.


where did single cell organisms come from?

No, play fair. I'll answer your questions regardless of whether I perceive them to be pointless, but only if you do the same.

So Answer my question. Could a Mexican hairless dog evolve into something like a St. Bernard?

[veritas]

it's a slow process

well, I thought evolution was telescopic in nature? I mean it seems that every "jump" takes less and less time.


what if I am actually the next evolution of man? Too soon?

[Diode]

no. no sir. I am asking a question that you are not answering. I am refusing to waver from it. come at me. where did humans come from?

already answered it. i weep for your lack of reading comprehension.

[Fig]

Where did DNA come from?

[Destroyer]

you can say whatever you want about it, but all of your questions point towards a beginning, and those answers no one has. it's too far back. all we can look at is the existing fossil record, which is horribly incomplete. but, from what we can see, evolution makes sense. There's at least SOME evidence for it. As opposed to the evidence that God made us in a garden, which there is none.

[veritas]

No, play fair. I'll answer your questions regardless of whether I perceive them to be pointless, but only if you do the same.

So Answer my question. Could a Mexican hairless dog evolve into something like a St. Bernard?

I honestly do not know. I know that they are both dogs so if enough of them banged they might make babies that were like a hybrid of both. akso, if mexico suddenly developed an artic climate they might adapt and start growing hair and maybe growing in time. fair?

Where did the single cell organism come from?

[Diode]

I honestly do not know.

[veritas]

you can say whatever you want about it, but all of your questions point towards a beginning, and those answers no one has.


now you are being honest and putting down the agenda and your hate for "religion" good. you are closer now to enlightenment then ever before. stay with it.


how can no one know the beginning, but at the same time know what the beginning wasnt?

plus I have already said that there was a world on earth before this, which the Bible plainly speaks about.

So is it possible that maybe you are putting your blind faith in something, just as you think I am as well?

Is that a fair statement?

[Destroyer]

bro that's all any of us can do
but I'm putting my faith behind today's scientists, not ancient wizards

[veritas]

i honestly do not know

which fallacy is it where you leave out the whole second half of the statement?

I honestly do not know. I know that they are both dogs so if enough of them banged they might make babies that were like a hybrid of both. akso, if mexico suddenly developed an artic climate they might adapt and start growing hair and maybe growing in time. fair?

[Diode]

answer the question:

Where did man come from?

and I can combat all those "peking man etc" that they were hoaxes. just saying.

Current data suggest that modern humans evolved from archaic humans primarily in East Africa. A 195,000 year old fossil from the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people

[veritas]

bro that's all any of us can do
but I'm putting my faith behind today's scientists, not ancient wizards

cmon now, arent ancient wizards the scientists of their day?

Didnt the great sci-fi writer hubbard say that all magic is merely advanced technology?

[Diode]

answer the question:

Where did man come from?

and I can combat all those "peking man etc" that they were hoaxes. just saying.

Current data suggest that modern humans evolved from archaic humans primarily in East Africa. A 195,000 year old fossil from the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people

[veritas]

yeah I saw that Diode. I asked....where did that come from? what did it evolve from?

[Diode]

answer the question:

Where did man come from?

and I can combat all those "peking man etc" that they were hoaxes. just saying.

Current data suggest that modern humans evolved from archaic humans primarily in East Africa. A 195,000 year old fossil from the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people

[Destroyer]

fuck VERITAS...
where did God come from?

[veritas]

fuck VERITAS...
where did God come from?

NOW WE ARE GETTING TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER!


FINALLY A DECENT QUESTION!

AND A BRICK WALL! WELL DONE.

I know he didnt evolve from something less than him over an undicsclosed amount of time....because he is outside of time. fair?

[Diode]

NOW WE ARE GETTING TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER!


FINALLY A DECENT QUESTION!

AND A BRICK WALL! WELL DONE.

I know he didnt evolve from something less than him over an undicsclosed amount of time....because he is outside of time. fair?

WRONG.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm

http://www.skeptical-science.com/atheism/debunking-argument/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause

[veritas]

lolzord this dude is quoting hume. I have heard of this before and I simply counter it by:

What is the universe expanding into?




You fail when you try to limit God. That is why it is a brick wall. We cannot comprehend the infinite of time and space. Just because a being could be a priori and this universe can't doesnt mean that that being couldnt exist.

marinate.

[Dominate]

I honestly do not know. I know that they are both dogs so if enough of them banged they might make babies that were like a hybrid of both. akso, if mexico suddenly developed an artic climate they might adapt and start growing hair and maybe growing in time. fair?

Where did the single cell organism come from?


Yes, fair. Thx.

I'm not sure where single cell organisms came from. I know that the scientific explanation is called the theory of abiogenesis and I believe there is much evidence for it, though I've not personally looked into it or it's arguments terribly much. As such, although I believe it to be probably correct, I'm not as adverse to the "god did it" explanation as I am for evolution. In this, you are right - it is a matter of faith. I have faith in the scientific explanation over the biblical one because in every matter where there is a conflict between the two where I do know about each side's argument (including the theory of evolution), I've sided with the scientific explanation.


For a third generation of mankind to come about, I.e. after Adam and Eve and their children, was there incest or did god make more ppl after the first 2?

[veritas]

Yes, fair. Thx.

I'm not sure where single cell organisms came from. I know that the scientific explanation is called the theory of abiogenesis and I believe there is much evidence for it, though I've not personally looked into it or it's arguments terribly much. As such, although I believe it to be probably correct, I'm not as adverse to the "god did it" explanation as I am for evolution. In this, you are right - it is a matter of faith. I have faith in the scientific explanation over the biblical one because in every matter where there is a conflict between the two where I do know about each side's argument (including the theory of evolution), I've sided with the scientific explanation.


For a third generation of mankind to come about, I.e. after Adam and Eve and their children, was there incest or did god make more ppl after the first 2?


fair?

[uh-oh]

im too high to jump in this convo without typing novels. i've deleted two already.

main points you wouldve gleamed tho

1. i'm right
2. you're all idiots

[veritas]

im too high to jump in this convo without typing novels. i've deleted two already.

main points you wouldve gleamed tho

1. i'm right
2. you're all idiots

Certainly a convenient conclusion eh other james?

[Destroyer]

hey V,

how does a perfect being who can't do wrong create an imperfect being?
like, you believe man are all sinners, yes?
why? did God fuck up? did he not foresee what was to come?
why do so many people live in slavery and squalor? does that please God?
is he indifferent to man's suffering or just powerless to stop it?
and if that's the case, how is he all powerful? or all good?

[Dominate]

fair?

What's your point?

You're insinuating that a lack of knowledge necessitates the existance of god. It doesn't. And even if it did, as you yourself said, the existance of god does not contradict the theory of evolution.

Let's go with that for the sake of argument. God created the initial, simplest forms of life AND the laws of the universe that would govern them. Now what's your argument against evolution?


Also, you owe an answer on my Adam and Eve question. Don't be a shithead. I've answered your questions (and will continue to), you answer mine.

[dead man]

lack of knowledge necessitates the existance of god.
kind of like faith in a nutshell

that being said, i don't know why everybody is so determined to undermine or change V's religious beliefs. who cares? whatever gets him through his days is his business imo.

im not faithful but would never bash anybody for finding comfort and support in the church. there are a thousand reasons why organized/corporate religion is fucked up and operates in ways that contradict a lot of its virtues but the social and community-mindedness of the church is really beneficial and even life-saving for many people. if you don't feel the need to fill in the gaps with these ideas then cool, but i just don't see the point tearing people down who do. even on the internet..

[Dominate]

I've no problem with people filling in the gaps with god. Or even preferring a biblical explanation over a scientific one when they have knowledge of both.

I do a have a problem with people arguing against the scientific explanation when they clearly lack understanding of what it is -- pretending there are gaps where there aren't.

I wouldn't say something against a guy who believed a biblical explanation but openly admitted he knew jack shit about the scientific explanation.

If you're going to argue against something, know what it's about. That's all.

[Batty]

kind of like faith in a nutshell

that being said, i don't know why everybody is so determined to undermine or change V's religious beliefs. who cares? whatever gets him through his days is his business imo.

im not faithful but would never bash anybody for finding comfort and support in the church. there are a thousand reasons why organized/corporate religion is fucked up and operates in ways that contradict a lot of its virtues but the social and community-mindedness of the church is really beneficial and even life-saving for many people. if you don't feel the need to fill in the gaps with these ideas then cool, but i just don't see the point tearing people down who do. even on the internet..

That's alot like how I am, I get how it works, so I dont sweat it. I mean it's called "faith " for a reason, I don't know why people expect proof.

People also put alot of faith into what they read on the other side of the argument. Some people read an article or a book and just use it as if it is 100% provable fact.

This almost always serves into complete clusterfuck conversation.

[Diode]

I've no problem with people filling in the gaps with god. Or even preferring a biblical explanation over a scientific one when they have knowledge of both.

I do a have a problem with people arguing against the scientific explanation when they clearly lack understanding of what it is -- pretending there are gaps where there aren't.

I wouldn't say something against a guy who believed a biblical explanation but openly admitted he knew jack shit about the scientific explanation.

If you're going to argue against something, know what it's about. That's all.

^^^^^^^^^^^

[sral]

hold up, are you guys telling me Dan Brown was wrong?

[Witty]

hold up, are you guys telling me Dan Brown was wrong?

Dan Brown is never wrong.

[Just C]

I love how people in here are standing by their words as if they are 100% FACT.

Chances are 100 years from now a scientific breakthrough will blow all these theories out of the water.

It happens all the time as scientific technology gets more sophisticated and the mind using it more astute.

Just because it's scientific "fact" now. doesn't mean it wont be science fiction tomorrow.

[Witty]

I love how people in here are standing by their words as if they are 100% FACT.

Chances are 100 years from now a scientific breakthrough will blow all these theories out of the water.

It happens all the time as scientific technology gets more sophisticated and the mind using it more astute.

Just because it's scientific "fact" now. doesn't mean it wont be science fiction tomorrow.

That's a dumb argument though, because you don't know the facts we have today WILL be disproven, I agree a lot of things we now believe will prove to be innacurate, but you don't know WHICH facts will, so to not believe them because they MAY be disproven, even though there is evidence for it, is backwards logic. There is REASON to believe it, until there is reason not to believe it, the logical thing to do is believe it.

[King Masa]

Science still cannot explain what gravity is. LOLSEEMSCREDIBLE.

[Diode]

anything that is a scientific "fact" has been irrefutably proven and observed. that will not change. an atom contains a nucleus. this is a fact. dark matter makes up the majority of the known universe. this is a theory.

you are confusing fact with theory.

[King Masa]

So what makes up gravity?

[Just C]

That's a dumb argument though, because you don't know the facts we have today WILL be disproven, I agree a lot of things we now believe will prove to be innacurate, but you don't know WHICH facts will, so to not believe them because they MAY be disproven, even though there is evidence for it, is backwards logic. There is REASON to believe it, until there is reason not to believe it, the logical thing to do is believe it.

Not really. I believe what my eyes tell me is real. Not what some scientist tells me (Talking evolution) through theory, which is pretty much what it is, theory.

(But scientists have evidence that this and this took place thus evolution is true)

Scientists have had "evidence" many times before on many things only to back track or be completely proven wrong through miscalculation or w.e else in the past (Again as science became more sophisticated)

So I don't believe what they say is true, I also don't disregard what they say. All is taken with a pinch of salt as a possibility.

[King Masa]

Not really. I believe what my eyes tell me is real.

this just in, every magic trick is real cause his eyes say so.

LOGIC LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

[Just C]

The rage is strong with you.

[Just C]

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

and in 50 years time you'll have a new list of facts that were stated to be true today.

The problem is. We don't know enough about our own planet yet, nvm other planets and stars to claim anything to be "fact"

Scientists claim planets are inhabitable for intelligent life because we're still playing by our own naive rigid rules in terms of what can house itelligent life and more importantly, what "intelligent" life NEEDS to survive.

[King Masa]

No rage, just pointing out your flawed logic. Carry on.

[Just C]

It's not flawed. You just took it the wrong way. It was merely a figure of speech, wasn't intended to be taken litteral for all things.

[Plot]

Festering, funk! Yeast, life began as bacteria


Plus: how is gravity not proven? things that spin suck things into them, this has to occur in space where no atmosphere exists. its obvious.

[Fig]

You think God farts bros?

What's the octave of a God fart?

[Answer]

this isn't really anything new. Pope Francis is not the first Pope to say that evolution doesn't contradict theism. The Roman Catholic Church has pretty much recognized evolution and rejected intelligent design since the 1950's.

Postulating that evolution is a fact, it does conflict with a lot of ideas in the bible. Everything ranging from Adam and Eve to the idea that Man & Dinosaurs once roamed the land together, and a large portion of Genesis are all null and void.

And there's really no sense in compartmentalizing the bible. You can't sit there and say "This book is infallible, and everything in it is a fact unless you can prove part of it wrong, at which point everything else is still a fact except for the parts you prove wrong." Eventually the Bible just turns into this perpetually receding guise of truth.

Does it mean there's no God? Of course not. But there's enough information out there for any logical person to deduce that all of the notions of religion that have been created by mankind are terribly incorrect

[Mike Wrecka]

VERITAS , don't you Christian types believe that the world is only four or five thousand years old?


I was told that by a born again. I laughed in their face.


evolution has been proven through DNA.


and furthermore, it can be seen in real time fully visible to the naked eye through the process of natural selection. small mutations that are advantageous to a species survival will quickly be passed onto more and more offspring. while those lacking the mutation will die off. soon all that is left is the species with the mutation, at this point it is pronounced enough that it is an entirely new species and if it comes across the original species, that perhaps was isolated/living in different conditions and not exposed to the mutation, they will not recognize each other as viable breeding partners.


happens all the time