• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

Did we evolve from Apes?

  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 41 57.7%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    Votes: 10 14.1%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • Total voters
    71
I think human beings are the descendents of various different animals, not just one. Furthermore, I believe it is possible to tell what animal you are descendent from based on your particular physical characteristics and behaviors. For instance, my friend John's ancestors were definitely apes, because he has a lot of back hair. My ex-girlfriend had evolved from rabbits, because she slept with a lot of different people (rabbits are whores. It's a proven fact).

As for myself, my ancestors are most definitely horses. ;)
 
Because I look at the incredible interconnected complexity of the world around me and see purpose, not chance. It's a matter of perspective, and if you don't see it that way, I don't see how I can make you understand why I do. If you don't... well, you don't. To me it seems very obvious.

The human mind loves to see order in chaos, purpose in futility, and meaning in the void. Of course it cannot be explained, it's something inborn, lacking in logic, reason. Some overcome this failing of the brain, some cannot, some chose not to.


My belief, my faith, is something that has grown over the course of a lifetime. Explaining why I have that faith would take a lifetime to tell, in full. In brief, I have experienced far too many things in life that cause me to believe there has to be a God; and many years of reading the Bible, being an observer of human nature, and of life and history, nature and so much more, led me to the conclusion that God is the God of the Bible. I've experienced things that demand these conclusions. Trying to explain it is a bit like trying to explain love to someone who has never felt it. I cannot prove it scientifically as it is not a scientific issue, but rather a spiritual and personal issue.

Naturally, we see, feel, hear, what it is that we want. This applies to me as it does everyone of course. I have another question; do you think the god you believe in is a benevolent god with a plan, and wants what's best?



If you were viewing the issue from my perspective you might think otherwise. From within the context of my own life-experiences, I find the existence and omnipresence of God as self-evident as the rising of the sun. If you don't, then fair enough, you just don't.

If you don't share my beliefs, then you don't.... my beliefs do not require you to agree, don't depend on anyone else's agreement, don't sway because someone questions or ridicules them, or because the majority feels otherwise.

I felt a spiritual conviction to express my beliefs on this subject; I have done so. I don't necessarily expect anyone to openly agree with me, since few will risk the ridicule that usually follows from those holding to "position 1".

For the politeness and courtesy of your response, Duke, I thank you. It was a better reaction than I expected to encounter.

G.

I'm not asking for a life story or anything of that nature, but just so I could get an idea of what I'm dealing with here, do you think you could give me an example of some of your own life experiences that have given you this conviction? Thanks in advance.


Duke
 
A typical argument of an evolutionist – and who are you?
- Who are you to tell me?
- And who are you to tell me?

As I told many times, I do not have to be an authority to establish the obvious fact that evolutionists use morphology as a measurement. It is what you do, I just point to the fact that you do.

This is gonna be a quick one, its 1am. Busy weekend.
I didn't mean a "who are you to question evolution" thing. I meant you did evidence to back up your claims or else you wills eem like an fictional authority on evoltion.



I stated ‘’Proposed is not established or observed’’. I do not need to explain that this statement is true to anybody except evolutionists, and it is evident to anybody except evolutionists that nothing can be explained to evolutionists if they ask for explanation of such a simple truth.

We observe that it is sexual isolated from it parents. We observe its DNA its parents are that of S. vulgaris and S. squalidis . Is that your argument? Its flimsy. "The scientist didn't say a word a wanted". I think the evidence speaks for itself justone.


As I told many times, Neither your link, nor my investigation ever shows that your statement is true, but only the opposite can be deducted.

You investigation? What experiments did you do? What data did you collect? Your an advocate of proper science apparantly, get some evidence for your investigations.

I do not have time or intention to go through all BS you wish to post. I did not have to because I quoted the results of ISSR and as it was evident from the quote they did NOT establish parenthood, but ->

All my BS? Give evidence that it is BS. Just because you say so doesn't make it true.

Then what are DNA tests for courts for?

To ID criminals, fathers of children, that sort of thing. The odds are very scare that a RAPD test is wrong, thats why the courts use them.
As I told many times, It all starts from the fact I have demonstrated so many times, - evolutionists do not know, do not understand, do not follow rules of science from the very start, starting from Darwin. They bring confusion to most simple things as they have no ability to understand most simple things. Indeed science by its nature does not make true statements, it does not establish any truth. When you read on your calendar that the Sun will rise tomorrow at 4.53 am it is not a 100% definite and true statement. There is no logical proof for the statement that if it was raining/shining for the last n days then it will rain/shine/rise tomorrow to be true. It is a proposition - on the base of observations of the sun in the past it is proposed that it will rise tomorrow at 4.53 am as the proposition is 100% proven by mathematical calculations coming to the number 4.53 and there are no observations of the past or mathematical proofs related to this or that observation that would result in a different number, a different proposition. Science does not gather evidence, it is not an evidence related activity, it is an empirical EXPERIMENTAL activity, it starts from gathering observations of a phenomena (occurrences of the sun rising) and finishes with occurrences of phenomena.
Science gathers evidence to explain natural phenonomon until it gathers so much evidence that it backs a theory beyond all reasonable doubt.

Germ Theory, science doesn't prove that microscopic life causes disease, but we know beyond all reasonable doubt.

Mathematics can predict the time of the sunrise, because the equation has constants and predictable variables. Evolution does not have predictable variables and very few constants. Out of the blue, wolves may change its prey, bang, the ecosystem is changed. How can mathematics predict animal behaviour? Can mathematics predict whether you will fall in love with a person or not, or get in a fight, or maybe a flutter of jealously, or predict if you decide to become a vegetarian or not.

Life is too complex and unpredictable for mathematics. That is the mistake creationist math whizzes forget. They are right when they say life cannot have evolved by chance, but they do not realise that evolution is governed by nature, not chance.

Germ Theory, science doesn't prove that microscopic life causes disease, but we know beyond all reasonable doubt.

As I told many times, This is the core difference between science using the inductive method to make propositions, and evolution or philosophy using the deductive method to establish the truth.

Can you not recognised that species change, die out, are formed, that life is not static, but slowly ever changing. Static life?


Mule stats is noticeably different. As I told many times, you have not established the number dividing successful from unsuccessful. You change order and float the point 0.1 to 0.000001 at will just to fit your beliefs.

Its funny a creationist saying a manipulate the facts to fit my own beliefs lol.

The fact that crossovers between S. erboracensis and its parent S. vulgaris are not only very unlikey to happen at all in the wild, but are in fact weaker, smaller seed size etc. Could they survive in a competitive ecosystem? What we are seeing here is a new species, it cannot at the current time blend back with the parent.


How the same plant duplicating the same genetic information is getting more distant from the same plant? And whatever is the answer, - as I asked so many times, -what observation does confirm such a suggestion?

Well for a start it already is pretty distant from one parent - S. squalidis. Do you agree?

S. vulagris, is somewhat compatible in certain conditions very rare in the wild, but they will get distant geneticall.

Mutuations happen in DNA and have been observed, you agree? Both S. vulgaris and S. eboracensis will mutate. If S. vulgaris and S. eboracensis is not exchanging DNA with each other, they cannot share mutations. The mutations build up and build up independently in each species, their DNA becomes less and less identical until they have 0% of mating even in a lab.


You are pulling the same worn out ad hom a strawmen fallacies and again and again and again and again. You are –reusing the same condom again and again and again. How many more times?

Yet you still won't answer the question. Have you something to hide justone? You call us liars and cheats, yet cannot give a reason why we do so. I'm being open ,your being opaque about your views.

It is simple, if we are dishonest we are lying, therefore we have a motive for lying, its not a strawman or an ad-hom, just asking the reason why you slander scientists? Is that so unreasonable?


I gave you a concrete reference to them doing math. You have not made a word related to the reference and the facts but went into you usual violent assault on religion of other people. As well you have completely ignored my reply to your statement about evolution and mathematics. For some reason you think that if evolutionists blinded by their hatred to Christians do not notice that, then nobody notices that. I wonder how much Ikari is blinded by his hatred and if he can see what I wanted to demonstrate to him. Ikari, where are you?

I have no problem with religion in general, like I said my girlfriend is a Christain. But creationism I cannot stand, because they are putting forth their own agenda in the way of scientific enquiry.

I haven't ignored your statement about mathematics. In mathematics you can predict, in evolution you can't, except maybe the past.
[
QUOTE=justone;1058015860]
Now let’s go to meaningless insults and insinuations evolutionists always use as the main argument:

With a wave of the wrist? For some reason you think that if evolutionists blinded by their hatred to Christians do not notice detailed arguments, quotes and facts I have been submitting, then nobody notices?[/QUOTE]

Now your whining about hatred towards christains? Is this a new tactic justone?

I have been considering mostly YOUR evidence.

Not my evidence. Two scientists evidence, passed though the endless barrage of scientific criticism until in finally got published in a scientific journal. If you want to "disprove it" the method is right there for you or anyone to do it Justone.


I have assumed that the quoted sources of yours report their experiments as they should, and I have no evidence telling me that I should think otherwise and not to trust them.

Thank goodness, some leeway. Can't you see how S. erboacensis can be classified as a new species, due to its sexual isolation from its parents?

As I asked many times, how many times have you already used this line?

Sounds like what you are saying is a conspiracy theory to me.

A conspiracy theory is a term that has come to refer to any tentative theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators,[1] such as a "secret team" or "shadow government".[2]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory]Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
The human mind loves to see order in chaos, purpose in futility, and meaning in the void. Of course it cannot be explained, it's something inborn, lacking in logic, reason. Some overcome this failing of the brain, some cannot, some chose not to.

Some people persist in seeing chance where there is purpose; futility where there is hope, emptiness where there is meaning. It's something they lost somewhere, lacking in the ability to touch the divine and believe there is more to life than what can be proven by logic. Some overcome this failing of the spirit, some do not, some don't wish to.




. I have another question; do you think the god you believe in is a benevolent god with a plan, and wants what's best?

The short answer is yes; the explanation would take a lot of talking and probably be beyond the scope of this thread. I'm not sure you'd be intrested in an extended theological dissertation on "why do bad things happen to good people" or some such.


I'm not asking for a life story or anything of that nature, but just so I could get an idea of what I'm dealing with here, do you think you could give me an example of some of your own life experiences that have given you this conviction? Thanks in advance.

A lot of those experiences are far too personal to relate on an internet board. Others you'd probably find hard to believe. I'll give you a few:

My prayers get answered. I'm not saying I hear voices, I'm saying things happen...often in ways that are too poetically appropriate to possibly be random chance.

I've seen lives changed by faith; I've seen people who were so far down the road to self-destruction that everyone else had given up on them, be brought back from that brink by faith, and live a completely changed life thereafter.

There have been many moments when I could feel God's presence, and his love, as easily as you feel the sun shining on your face. There's no mistaking it if you've ever experienced it.

Heh, by this point I'm sure someone reading is ready to classify me as "mentally ill" so they can dismiss what I've said as religious-fanatic drivel. A soul that has lost the ability to feel the spiritual side to existence usually does not want to hear about it, let alone consider it.

Well, I've already said more than I intended. Thank you again for being polite.

G.
 
My prayers get answered. I'm not saying I hear voices, I'm saying things happen...often in ways that are too poetically appropriate to possibly be random chance.

I've seen lives changed by faith; I've seen people who were so far down the road to self-destruction that everyone else had given up on them, be brought back from that brink by faith, and live a completely changed life thereafter.

There have been many moments when I could feel God's presence, and his love, as easily as you feel the sun shining on your face. There's no mistaking it if you've ever experienced it.

Heh, by this point I'm sure someone reading is ready to classify me as "mentally ill" so they can dismiss what I've said as religious-fanatic drivel. A soul that has lost the ability to feel the spiritual side to existence usually does not want to hear about it, let alone consider it.

Well, I've already said more than I intended. Thank you again for being polite.

G.

I'm a hard-bitten athiest, but I like your conviction, and under no circumstance would I label you or anyone else who believes as 'mentally ill'. I think anyone who would do so is unsure of their own metaphysical view. You have your own unique experiences that strengthen your faith, and if it makes you a better person, then so be it.

At the risk of getting way off topic, i'll say that one of my favorite things to do during the summer is attend the local short track races. They're such fun! And every Saturday night, they start off by saying the 'racer's prayer', followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, and then the best four words ever - "Gentlemen, start your engines!" Even though I don't believe in the Christian God, I always bow my head when they say the prayer. Some would say that may be hypocritical, but I think it's being respectful of other's religious beliefs. Besides, it's just a few words of faith. It isn't like they are barging into my house or a public institution and making it mandatory.
 
Then again, I'm merely waiting for you, or even any other fool rejecting the proven science of evolution, to state what they do believe happened.

You have some moral objection to posting jokes or something?

See, this is just another example of your own inability to comprehend the English language. Please show me one instance where I have stated I do not believe in evolution.

In fact, only a total retard would have missed the numerous times that I mentioned that I personally believe in evolution.

And guess what?

You missed it.

Repeatedly.

You know what that means, right?

If not, look five sentences up and see the type of person who could have missed it. Then look in the mirror and say "I am a ________".

;)
 
Last edited:
What you have primarily failed to comprehend, even though it's been stated repeatedly, is that I don't deny evolution. I believe some form of evolution occurred.

Just one example of how it was said to you repeatedly so that only a retard would fail to understand. ;)


I have numerous more other examples just in case you still want to play pretend again with your claims of intelligence.
 
Last edited:
I meant you did evidence to back up your claims or else you wills eem like an fictional authority on evoltion.

The next time say what you mean. One of my main thesis was that evolutionists always say they see no evidence, no matter how much I show, and that I have not proven anything to them, no matter that they have not raised any objections to my proofs..


1.
We observe that it is sexual isolated from it parents.

It does not matter for you that your own experiments I quoted do not show that.
2.
We observe its DNA its parents are that of S. vulgaris and S. squalidis.

It does not matter for you that your own experiments I quoted do not show that.

Is that your argument? Its flimsy.

Since when your 1. and 2. arguments became mine?

"The scientist didn't say a word a wanted".

Unless you can link to the post of me saying so, it is another strawmen.

I think the evidence speaks for itself justone.

It does.

You investigation? What experiments did you do? What data did you collect? Your an advocate of proper science apparantly, get some evidence for your investigations.

The 3rd time: The same experiments as many do on DP. You make a claim. I google it. I quote one of most easy for the audience results showing that your claim is false and you are cheating as usual. Anyone can conduct the same experiment and see the same result. How many more times?

All my BS? Give evidence that it is BS. Just because you say so doesn't make it true.

Nice logic. You expect me to encourage you to post more BS and get me exhausted? Nice logic, or more correctly – a very old logical fallacy. I warned ahead of time that I was going to skip 90% of the both posts of yours and just hit the nerves. Anything else does not make sense. You absolutely ignore my answers like the one above and make me to repeat the same again and again. Right here you are cheating again because you have also ignored ‘’->’’ quoted by you. How many more times

The odds are very scare that a RAPD test is wrong, thats why the courts use them.

Right here you are cheating again because you have ignored my previous answer - I googled RAPD and I quoted the results showing that your statement is false so you were cheating. Anyone can do the same experiment to see that you were and you are.

Science gathers evidence to explain natural phenonomon until it gathers so much evidence that it backs a theory beyond all reasonable doubt.

So the starting point of a theory, of gathering evidence is that when science has no evidence?

Or may be the starting point of a theory is when it has ”a little”’ evidence? or may be ‘’pretty damn good’’ evidence, like 1 or 2 or 5 or 29? Why not 15.5?

And how much has it to be to back a theory beyond all reasonable doubt? Would 7 be enough?

And why should I accept that your doubt in existence of God is reasonable is spite of all evidence of his existence, and my doubt in evolution is unreasonable in spite of all your obvious manipulation with your evidence, in spite of your obvious cheating?




Mathematics can predict the time of the sunrise, because the equation has constants and predictable variables.

How do you know before you make the equation what does it have?

Mathematics does not predict, but it calculates a proposition of the time of the sunrise, science uses math as a tool in order to satisfy Ikari’s demand for measurable. Ikari is a die hard atheist and evolutionist of DP who cut and run, and I suspect he did it because he partially understood some simple questions, and he realized that the honest answer to the question will serve as a proof of existence of God. But it did not shake his blind beliefs, except for adding one more blind belief – that I was smarter than him and/or I fooled him around in some way, but the truth is on his side.

You are void of even such a primitive and vague idea of science he has.

Evolution does not have predictable variables and very few constants. Out of the blue, wolves may change its prey, bang, the ecosystem is changed. How can mathematics predict animal behaviour? Can mathematics predict whether you will fall in love with a person or not, or get in a fight, or maybe a flutter of jealously, or predict if you decide to become a vegetarian or not.

So it is pretty much the same as about love, jealousy etc. We have an absolute agreement here. I rest my case.
 
Life is too complex and unpredictable for mathematics. That is the mistake creationist math whizzes forget.

I thought it was what evolutionists who lie about creationists that creationists say that life is too complex? I guess now evolutionists say that life is too complex?

What is the mistake of their math, again?

They are right when they say life cannot have evolved by chance,

How do you know that they are right? And if they are right in what they say what is your problem?


but they do not realise that evolution is governed by nature, not chance.

Many of them, including your Christian girlfriend with PhD in biology, say that evolution is governed by God, how your statement is more scientific than theirs? Let’s say yours is true – what difference does it make for science? Let’s say theirs is true – what difference does it make for science?





Can you not recognised that species change, die out, are formed, that life is not static, but slowly ever changing. Static life?


I have recognized many time, moreover it has been always pointed by me – that we have observed those changes, and they have been not only recorded in a mathematical manner by Christian creationist scientist Gregor Mendel, but also the mathematical records have been producing useful results in genetic engineering (when engineering by itself is the discipline and profession of applying technical, scientific and mathematical knowledge in order to use natural laws and physical resources to help design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that safely realize a desired objective) and other practical applications.

Moreover I have been always using it as an example that theories of Christian creationist scientists always have to have mathematical apparatus and find practical and useful implementation to pass the litmus test showing if they are scientific or not, when in evolutionist science there is no practical use, there are no objective tests.

Well for a start it already is pretty distant from one parent - S. squalidis. Do you agree?
If you wish me to agree with you that it already is pretty distant from one parent - S. squalidis., you have my agreement and I rest my case.


Both the propagandist article and your link state the same, - S. squalidis does not mate with its parentS. ‘’Not pretty distant’’, as the observations may be interpreted, not with one, - but they both positively state it does not mate with its parentS. At the same time the real observations do not establish such a positive identification of the parents (BTW if RAPD could, there would have been no need for planting and crossing) and mating with BOTH guessed our perentS. I rest my case.




S. vulagris, is somewhat compatible in certain conditions very rare in the wild,
See the above. I rest my case.
but they will get distant geneticall.

You have my agreement. They are not, but you say they will. I am leaving you to observe the second coming I mean an event of getting them distant geneticall in some unknown future. They are not in my life time, thus I rest my case.

Mutuations happen in DNA and have been observed, you agree? Both S. vulgaris and S. eboracensis will mutate. If S. vulgaris and S. eboracensis is not exchanging DNA with each other, they cannot share mutations. The mutations build up and build up independently in each species, their DNA becomes less and less identical until they have 0% of mating even in a lab.

It is all logical. I do not have problems with your logic. I have my logic, you have yours. All I had to prove is that you on other side have been having problems with my logic, when I don’t have problems with your logic. You have been posting confirmations of my proof it again and again.
I rest my case.
Yet you still won't answer the question. Have you something to hide justone? You call us liars and cheats, yet cannot give a reason why we do so. I'm being open ,your being opaque about your views.

It is simple, if we are dishonest we are lying, therefore we have a motive for lying, its not a strawman or an ad-hom, just asking the reason why you slander scientists? Is that so unreasonable?
That would be the 3rd time of me repeating my answer. And then you would still go in circles endlessly.


I have no problem with religion in general, like I said my girlfriend is a Christain. But creationism I cannot stand, because they are putting forth their own agenda in the way of scientific enquiry.

I skipped that as a BS not worth of an answer.


I haven't ignored your statement about mathematics. In mathematics you can predict, in evolution you can't, except maybe the past.

Thus evolution is not science.
Not my evidence.

Two scientists evidence, passed though the endless barrage of scientific criticism until in finally got published in a scientific journal. If you want to "disprove it" the method is right there for you or anyone to do it Justone.

I said:
Posted by justone said:
I have been considering mostly YOUR evidence

How can I make it sound for the deaf? I have been considering 3 scientists evidence passed though the endless barrage of scientific criticism until in finally got published in a scientific journal POSTED BY YOU, - pointing that endless does not come to finality and skipping all other BS and lies you have managed to include in one sentence.

1.Thank goodness, some leeway. 2. Can't you see how S. erboacensis can be classified as a new species, due to its sexual isolation from its parents?

How 1. can ever be related to 2. or cause 2.?

I said: I have assumed that the quoted sources of yours report their experiments as they should, and I have no evidence telling me that I should think otherwise and not to trust them.

Assuming that the report of observations/experiments is all honest cannot lead to the bogus conclusion that S. erboacensis can be classified as a new species, due to its sexual isolation from its parents, as I have demonstrated by quoting the report of EXPERIMENTS.
Sounds like what you are saying is a conspiracy theory to me.

You are making a whole conspiracy theory out of one justone.
 
I gave you a concrete reference to them doing math. You have not made a word related to the reference and the facts but went into you usual violent assault on religion of other people. As well you have completely ignored my reply to your statement about evolution and mathematics. For some reason you think that if evolutionists blinded by their hatred to Christians do not notice that, then nobody notices that. I wonder how much Ikari is blinded by his hatred and if he can see what I wanted to demonstrate to him. Ikari, where are you?

Now let’s go to meaningless insults and insinuations evolutionists always use as the main argument:

I find the second part of this quote ironic given what was in the first part of this quote.
 
See, this is just another example of your own inability to comprehend the English language. Please show me one instance where I have stated I do not believe in evolution.

In fact, only a total retard would have missed the numerous times that I mentioned that I personally believe in evolution.

And guess what?

You missed it.

Repeatedly.

You know what that means, right?

Yes, it means you're writing style is so awful no one who can read english bothers to read your whole posts.
 
Many of them, including your Christian girlfriend with PhD in biology, say that evolution is governed by God, how your statement is more scientific than theirs? Let’s say yours is true – what difference does it make for science? Let’s say theirs is true – what difference does it make for science?

Then she should turn her PhD in. The theory of evolution is quite clear that there's no need for imaginary sky pixies "designing" things to explain the diversity of life on this planet.

Not to mention the fact that there's not a shred of evidence the the ISPs exist.
 
Yes, it means you're writing style is so awful no one who can read english bothers to read your whole posts.

Really? Don't two or three other posters in this very thread point out your flawed reading comprehension skills?

I'd say that the empirical evidence suggests that you need to look inward to solve the problem instead of projecting your own intellectual failings on others.
 
Really? Don't two or three other posters in this very thread point out your flawed reading comprehension skills?

I'd say that the empirical evidence suggests that you need to look inward to solve the problem instead of projecting your own intellectual failings on others.

I see you are still afraid to post your concept of the origin of species.
 
I see you are still afraid to post your concept of the origin of species.

More empirical evidence of your inability to comprehend English.

What part of "I believe in Evolution" led you to the conclusion that I am fearful of saying that I believe in evolution?
 
More empirical evidence of your inability to comprehend English.

I comprehend English just fine.

I posted exactly what I meant, you asked what exactly did I mean, so I posted exactly what I meant. Because I did it right the first time, naturally the second time was identical to the first.

What part of "I believe in Evolution" led you to the conclusion that I am fearful of saying that I believe in evolution?

You haven't said what it is you believe in. do you believe in Evolution by ISP, or the theory of evolution by natural selection, which has a scientific and empirical basis?

I kinda figure you're a Sky Pixie kinda of guy.
 
You haven't said what it is you believe in. do you believe in Evolution by ISP, or the theory of evolution by natural selection, which has a scientific and empirical basis?

I kinda figure you're a Sky Pixie kinda of guy.

LOL. Remember when I quoted myself where I said I believe in evolution. I purposly left out a portion of that quote just to show that you indeed fail at reading comprehension.

Allow me, now, to post the full paragraph where the quote came form:

What you have primarily failed to comprehend, even though it's been stated repeatedly, is that I don't deny evolution. I believe some form of evolution occurred. Since I'm an atheist, I am not trying to promote "god" induced form of evolution like intelligent design either.

Of course, this wasn't the only time I stated as much in this thread, just a case where I stated it directly to you.

I comprehend English just fine.

Again, the empirical evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

:2wave:
 
Some people persist in seeing chance where there is purpose; futility where there is hope, emptiness where there is meaning.

What does this have to do with what I posted? You're talking about people as deluded as the people I was talking about, but they aren't deluded about the same thing... I'm referring to people who see things that are not there, you're referring to people who don't see things that are there. We're clearly not talking about the same thing. What purpose, hope, and meaning are you referring to? In the grand sense, perhaps? My mind would love to see some of that, but my brain isn't having it, because there is no such thing. I'd appreciate it if you'd directly address the points at hand, that is, if you can.


The short answer is yes; the explanation would take a lot of talking and probably be beyond the scope of this thread. I'm not sure you'd be intrested in an extended theological dissertation on "why do bad things happen to good people" or some such.

I assure you I'm very interested... What kind of god creates a species of intelligent creatures that saw the heads off each others children?
Regardless... By the "Biblical god," do you mean a omnipotent, omnipresent god as well?



My prayers get answered. I'm not saying I hear voices, I'm saying things happen...often in ways that are too poetically appropriate to possibly be random chance.

How can you claim that chance can't account for whatever supposedly unlikely things happened? The most absurdly unlikely things happen all the time... Thus is the scope of probability

I've seen lives changed by faith; I've seen people who were so far down the road to self-destruction that everyone else had given up on them, be brought back from that brink by faith, and live a completely changed life thereafter.

As have I... To me, this is one of the (very few) saving graces of religion. When the day comes where the number of lives improved by religion is higher than the number destroyed or otherwise maligned, I'll give it another look. Until then.

Yes, religion can improve lives; churches provide social situations where people can get help and have ways to help themselves. Look at the placebo effect for an example: the power of thought is enormous, the power of positive thinking, having faith in a thing, person, or one's self can cause many change. Giving people who can't think wholly independently a set of rules to follow can also cause improvements. I challenge you to claim that any sort of higher power is responsible for the myriad of psychological and psychosocial effects of religion and religious communities... There is nothing that can't be explained by cause and effect and psychological analysis going on here. Anyway, that's my position, feel free to ask for any sort of explication or elaboration.


Duke
 
Again, the empirical evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

Yes, the empirical evidence conclusively shows you're unwilling to state your beliefs.

Meanwhile, the reality that is evolution by natural selection doesn't require you to believe in it, so all you're depriving us of is a good laugh.
 
Yes, the empirical evidence conclusively shows you're unwilling to state your beliefs.

Actually, it shows the exact opposite since I have stated it over and over again.

You officially fail at both English and Science.

Don;t worry though. There's always basket weaving. I hear your kind excels at that class... so long as they make y'all wear your helmets.
 
P.S. Your use of the plural pronoun "us" also shows you fail at arithmetic. You are alone in your misunderstandings.

P.P.S. Make sure you don't eat the paste in basket weaving class. It's only sugar in water, but it can give you a tummy ache.
 
Then she should turn her PhD in. The theory of evolution is quite clear that there's no need for imaginary sky pixies "designing" things to explain the diversity of life on this planet.

.

What good would it do to you? How do you know she is not a beautiful blonde? I may be bias but I picture all women I don’t know, including even talloulou, as beautiful blondes. And I picture you as an envy ugly impotent, exactly like you represent yourself. I understand that putting music on and pouring a glass of wine even of some Champaign wouldn’t work. Did you try Viagra?
 
Back
Top Bottom