Pages: 1 … 43 44 45 46 47 … 51

Topic closed

2006-05-09 14:11:21
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6950|San Francisco
JamDude, here you go:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

More evidence from Berkeley: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

The point of the matter is that any and all evidence gathered for Evolution is evidence that can be tested and really isn't up to as much interpretation and doubtful skepticism as anything gathered from a subjective faith-based source.

We've found fossils and bones that help us understand a changing process in adaptation to environments; note the fish fossil that was found a few weeks ago that is proving to be the missing link between water-based fish and land-based reptiles.

We can constantly provide provable evidence for the theory of evolution that you can test and measure and judge for yourself, whereas you can only supply moderate explanations backwards that all lead up to accepting that a "creator" made it all.    In fact, the only "flexible" theory here is creationism, since you can bend it any way you want in order to come back to a "creator" since faith is so subjective.
2006-05-09 17:12:36
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6956

Marconius wrote:

Edit:  This is for you Ken.  This link describes a few of the things that have happened in this thread:
Click to see!
"ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists."

*edit: these were pretty good too*

ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists — it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys — you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth." John 3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

Absolutely brilliant.

Last edited by Skruples (2006-05-09 17:14:59)

2006-05-10 03:03:14
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6930|Canberra, AUS
I paticularly like no. 352:

WAYSON'S ARGUMENT
(1) Scientists generally accept the theory of evolution.
(2) I don't.
(3) Therefore, they are lying or fabricating their data.
(4) Therefore, God Exists.

This is the best summarisation of Jamdude's argument I've seen yet. Seriously.

Can ANYONE - and I mean ANYONE - give a SCIENTIFIC alternative to the theory of evolution THAT CAN EXPLAIN ALL THE PHENOMENA EVOLUTION CAN - and more? A lot of your 'fallacies in evolution' is just evidence that we (in general) aren't very good at finding evidence (because the Earth is cruel and destroys most of it long before we were around).

I'm waiting.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-05-10 03:45:58
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7027|PNW

Allow me to insert a bit of Trek nerdiness into this lost thread:

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations

https://anomaly.mushpark.com/images/visuals/sfmed5.jpg

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-10 03:46:07)

2006-05-10 03:57:21
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7097|Cologne, Germany

46 pages ?!?! wtf..

I have a lot of reading up to do, it seems...
2006-05-10 04:04:58
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6930|Canberra, AUS
Don't bother - nothing's really changed. Jamdude refuses to budge his stance. I think what he does is he ignores all the evidence we post, posts his own 'evidence' - then asks us to post evidence. WTF?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-05-10 09:47:51
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7033
no i want solid evidence of evolution, you guys post stuff thats easily explained

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists — it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
2006-05-10 09:50:49
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6950|San Francisco
I've posted the evidence of evolution.  We ALL want you to post something that ISN'T FAITH BASED that is a corollary or alternative to Evolution.
2006-05-10 09:53:38
Torin
Member
+52|6948
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of basing all your beliefs on non-tangible evidence?
2006-05-10 10:04:56
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7033
So you want me to prove ID without saying ANYTHING or going to any website that has to do with God. Would you like me to use evolution websites? Its not all faithed based. Its just "next to" impossible for life to happen by chance. Chance isnt the most reasonable answer to explain life on earth.
2006-05-10 10:10:20
Torin
Member
+52|6948
Next to impossible based on what?

Speaking of reasonable, neither is believing it was the act of an all-power deity in the sky, that no one can offer a shred of proof towards its existence.

The most reasonable explanation is the one that offers the most proof. Faith-based explanations offer no proof, which is why they require you to rely on something that can't be explained or proven.

A proverbial ton of things happen everyday by chance, why is it so unreasonable for life to occur by chance?
2006-05-10 10:31:56
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6888|949

JaMDuDe wrote:

So you want me to prove ID without saying ANYTHING or going to any website that has to do with God. Would you like me to use evolution websites? Its not all faithed based. Its just "next to" impossible for life to happen by chance. Chance isnt the most reasonable answer to explain life on earth.
We just want you to admit that you have no hard evidence God exists.  You are giving theists a bad name by refusing to allow that God may not exist.  I understand you are very devout in your beliefs, but God may not exist.  Also, just stop pointing us to religious websites that use circular logic and irrational thought to explain things that most in the scientific community believe to be absurd.  That is all we ask, Mr. JaMDuDe.  No one here is frustrated that you believe in God, just that you seem to have such a closed mind about the issue, that it is not conducive to debate with you anymore.

I'll tell you what JaMDuDe, when you die your soul can come back to Earth (if it ever left, or if there is indeed a soul) and tell me God exists, and I will believe.  I will send you all my contact information in a PM if you would like.  That is all I ask, shouldn't be that hard, right?

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-05-10 10:35:19)

2006-05-10 10:42:23
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7033
Marconius Wells was an atheist. He said it himself.

As skruples relies on, everything is incredible chance. But some things are beyond chance.
Heres an easier way to understand it.

The odds of the laws of physics being the way they are are the same as u throwing a dart from outer space and hitting a bullseye thats one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter.(i think me and rawkfist got the same book)

The odds of life spontaneously appearing on earth are the same as u finding a winning lottery ticket on the street every week for one thousand years. Those arent good odds.

The universe exploding out of nothing for no reason and ending up in perfect order isnt what id call a reasonable answer.

The fossil evidence of evolution is mud skippers and birds and 2 inch skull fossils that have 98% clay bodies based on what they should look like.

ITS NOT 100% FAITH BASED  Its based on historical fact and people writing things that came true hundreds sometimes thousands of years before they happened. The only explanation for this is that they could be interpeted a bunch of different ways and arent detailed or were written after it happened. None of these are true.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists — it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-05-10 11:25:38)

2006-05-10 10:54:43
Torin
Member
+52|6948
And there you have it folks.
2006-05-10 11:05:48
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6884|space command ur anus
After reading 45 pages of bullshit I'm totally and utterly convinced that GOD or any for of higher intelligence does not exists.
2006-05-10 11:07:55
Aries_37
arrivederci frog
+368|6831|London
This argument is pointless. If the best scientists and the most relgious people in the world can't argue it out and reach a conclusion then I seriously doubt we will have more luck. The reason for why it's hard to argue is because for religious people like me religion is a spiritual thing, it's about faith and your own personal connection with God, it's not something you can explain to others and have them understand. They have to experience it for themselves. Similarly, the aethiests cannot argue with someone about their spirituality, it's their personal thing so you really have no grounds or evidence to even begin to attack them.

Well that's my 2 cents, let's just go and play battlefield now k?
2006-05-10 11:21:25
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6946|Tampa Bay Florida

JaMDuDe wrote:

(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists — it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
LOL.  you make me laugh
2006-05-10 11:29:29
ArMaG3dD0n
Member
+24|7091|Deutschland/Germany
The "the odds are small" argument and how the calculation of odds is wrong has already been debated.
2006-05-10 11:34:23
ATC
Member
+58|7000|...

JaMDuDe wrote:

So you want me to prove ID without saying ANYTHING or going to any website that has to do with God. Would you like me to use evolution websites? Its not all faithed based. Its just "next to" impossible for life to happen by chance. Chance isnt the most reasonable answer to explain life on earth.
Well put. I agree. These guys will never believe you or change their minds. I believe in God, but believe me, they WILL NOT change their minds.
2006-05-10 11:39:15
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6888|949

Aslan_the_Creator wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

So you want me to prove ID without saying ANYTHING or going to any website that has to do with God. Would you like me to use evolution websites? Its not all faithed based. Its just "next to" impossible for life to happen by chance. Chance isnt the most reasonable answer to explain life on earth.
Well put. I agree. These guys will never believe you or change their minds. I believe in God, but believe me, they WILL NOT change their minds.
Fact of the matter is you CANNOT prove Intelligent Design, because the theories and science behind it are incredibly flawed.  You are right about one thing though.  No one here is going to change their mind about their beliefs, for this is one thing most people hold very dear.  The idea is to promote intelligent discussion (not sure if that has happened, the jury is still out).
2006-05-10 11:42:27
Torin
Member
+52|6948

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Aslan_the_Creator wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

So you want me to prove ID without saying ANYTHING or going to any website that has to do with God. Would you like me to use evolution websites? Its not all faithed based. Its just "next to" impossible for life to happen by chance. Chance isnt the most reasonable answer to explain life on earth.
Well put. I agree. These guys will never believe you or change their minds. I believe in God, but believe me, they WILL NOT change their minds.
Fact of the matter is you CANNOT prove Intelligent Design, because the theories and science behind it are incredibly flawed.  You are right about one thing though.  No one here is going to change their mind about their beliefs, for this is one thing most people hold very dear.  The idea is to promote intelligent discussion (not sure if that has happened, the jury is still out).
You can't have intelligent discussion when one side only wants to use faith as the source of their beliefs. There is nothing intellectual about faith, which is why there is rarely ever any progress made in discussions about religious beliefs and the scientific alternatives.
2006-05-10 13:55:33
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6956
I think I can sum up JaMDuDe's entire intellectual universe in 3 points:

#28.MITCHELL'S ARGUMENT
(1) The Christian God exists.
(2) Therefore, all worldviews which don't assume the Christian God's existence are false and incomprehensible.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#38. ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS
(1) If things had been different, then things would be different.
(2) That would be bad.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

And #11. ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

topal63 wrote:

Belief is a meaningless statement - in semantic terms - with regards to actually knowing something.
Thank you. This is what I've been saying all along, Creationists do not 'know' there is a God in the same way scientists 'know' there is gravity. One can be measured, tested and observed, the other is a concept which is by necessity beyond any human measurement. How can you bring God into science without destroying the foundations science is built upon? If we accept that there is a God, then anything is possible. Gravity might simply be the manifestation of His will. The universe outside of our solar system could be nothing more than a grand illusion created for our intellectual and observational pleasure. Can we really be sure that anything is independant of God's will if we assume that God exists? No.

Furthermore, what is a belief in God based on? It is based on past belief: I believed in God yesterday and the day before, and nothing has happened between then and now to change that viewpoint. If we follow that chain back far enough we arrive at a point when you did not believe in God, in most cases at a very impressionable age. Can you really be expected to develop your own view of reality if from the very earliest stages in your intellectual development you are told that there is only one reason for everything that happens, and that reason is God? No. As Marconius said very early in the thread, God is the death of free thought, and I couldn't agree more.
2006-05-10 20:56:37
MooseRyder
Member
+37|6911|Montréal, Canada

Skruples wrote:

I think I can sum up JaMDuDe's entire intellectual universe in 3 points:

#28.MITCHELL'S ARGUMENT
(1) The Christian God exists.
(2) Therefore, all worldviews which don't assume the Christian God's existence are false and incomprehensible.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#38. ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS
(1) If things had been different, then things would be different.
(2) That would be bad.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

And #11. ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

topal63 wrote:

Belief is a meaningless statement - in semantic terms - with regards to actually knowing something.
Thank you. This is what I've been saying all along, Creationists do not 'know' there is a God in the same way scientists 'know' there is gravity. One can be measured, tested and observed, the other is a concept which is by necessity beyond any human measurement. How can you bring God into science without destroying the foundations science is built upon? If we accept that there is a God, then anything is possible. Gravity might simply be the manifestation of His will. The universe outside of our solar system could be nothing more than a grand illusion created for our intellectual and observational pleasure. Can we really be sure that anything is independant of God's will if we assume that God exists? No.

Furthermore, what is a belief in God based on? It is based on past belief: I believed in God yesterday and the day before, and nothing has happened between then and now to change that viewpoint. If we follow that chain back far enough we arrive at a point when you did not believe in God, in most cases at a very impressionable age. Can you really be expected to develop your own view of reality if from the very earliest stages in your intellectual development you are told that there is only one reason for everything that happens, and that reason is God? No. As Marconius said very early in the thread, God is the death of free thought, and I couldn't agree more.
STRAIGHT TO THE POINT +1 FOR YOU BRO!

EDIT: sorry for caps

Last edited by MooseRyder (2006-05-10 20:57:02)

2006-05-10 21:07:50
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7027|PNW

Setting aside creation vs. evolution just for the moment, isn't it pretty cool that we're all around to argue about any of this?

It is nearly impossible to disprove religious figures, because you would br presenting non-recorded evidence of non-existence, which no proper skeptic would take seriously. Also, evolution is a perfectly feasable explaination as to the development of life on earth. However, some religions are so inflexible as to throw the science of the universe completely out the window in favor of story-supported beliefs of how we came into being.

If there is a God, who is to say what said deity would count as time, or how a creator would go about inventing life and the universe upon which it is based? I am sure that if an entity scientifically advanced enough to create a universe exists, that there would be more to creation than a ghostly finger poking at the sky and creating individual stars. A God in dialogue with a modern theoretical physicist would be about as impressed as watching a child trying to insert a round peg into a square hole, and I'm sure that many mathematicians would agree that we have barely begun to scratch the surface of the subject.

Quotes like:

Soldier-Of-Wasteland wrote:

Man has created God, not the other way around.
...are just as faith-based as Adam, Eve, the snake and the apple.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-10 21:18:04)

2006-05-10 21:13:51
Soldier-Of-Wasteland
Mephistopheles
+40|6912|Land of the Very Cold
Man has created God, not the other way around.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 43 44 45 46 47 … 51

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard