Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 100

Thread: Which came first?

  1. #81
    Natarian Knight supercomputers's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.09.2008
    Location
    Perma'd
    Posts
    1,480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden87 View Post
    Good job picking the crappiest plants ever... (Although broccoli is pretty good.)
    Quote Originally Posted by HAZ94 View Post
    Either way God prefers atheists to theists if he does exist

    1 Atheists are good. Not because they fear Hell in the afterlife, but because they want to be
    2 Atheists sort out their own problems instead of whining to God, i've got news to you. He doesn't give a toss
    3 They don't fight and murder because of him
    I contend point one.

    Atheists on the whole are not "good" as humans on the whole are not "good".

    From an evolutionary standpoint:

    Thog and Grog are two cave people, they wear animal skins and go out every once in a while to hunt deer. One day a big winter comes and kills all the deer. Thog and Grog are very hungry. Thog kills Grog, eats him and survives until spring where Thog meets Thogette and has little Thoglings. Thog's predisposition to murder and eat his neighbours lives on. The entire human race is predisposed to evil. That is not to say there cannot be good humans, or at least mostly good humans who don't kill and eat you physically, only mentally and politically.

    From a religiosity stand point:

    That dumb ***** ate an ***** and now we're all ****ed.

    Why is the fruit which cannot be compared to oranges censored?

    Humans are evil, ergo, atheists are evil as are religious people, the only difference is Jesus can make killing and eating your neighbour ok due to his incalculable magic powers.

  2. #82
    Thorned Warrior
    Join Date
    21.11.2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Utisz View Post
    If you want to convince me you need to tell me WHY it takes so much faith to believe in evolution. Not just misquote a lot of dead scientists and creationist in the hopes we won't be bothered to respond.
    Because unless you are a scientist/or biologist yourself having been present and/or participating in the various case studies proving all possible alleged variables in support of your revered theory, you must believe on the testimony of others.
    Hoping and assuming there has been no bias or forgery in such case studies, which we all know does exist in this world. (Especially when the majority of such studies are trying to prove evolution, not creation.) How can you be so sure? You must put faith in that, to believe.

    You must leap huge gaps and holes; defy extreme mathematical probabilities, despite any partial evidences. Again, that takes faith to believe.

    And if you really want to play the skeptic's card, when you do find those people with all the impressive credentials it takes to believe their opinions, how do you really know it's accurate or they're telling the truth? To some extent we must take people at their word and trust. That takes faith.

    Admittedly, all information, be it quotes, testimonies, research, whatever can be misconstrued.

    So in the end, despite any and all proposed opinions/arguements (which you have only presented as well) there will always exist the skeptics. The battle for "who's right" will forever go on. Thus, we will just have to agree to disagree, 'tis we end in a conundrum.
    Last edited by zenobia; 05.12.2010 at 03:41.

  3. #83
    Utisz
    Guest

    Default

    Your responses are becoming increasingly absurd, which is quite a hard feat considering they weren't particularly sound when you started. You have demonstrated an inability to read and your responses have only served to highlight the intellectual bankruptcy of your position if these are the best arguments you have.

    As an example of your total inability to read I give the following though there are multiple such examples now littered throughout this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    And if you really want to play the skeptic's card, when you do find those people with all the impressive credentials it takes to believe their opinions, how do you really know it's accurate or they're telling the truth?
    I don't and that was the entire bloody point of my statement as clearly illustrated in my previous post:
    From the fact that 95% of scientists accept the theory, with an even higher rate of acceptance amongst biologists it should be obvious that I can produce an even more impressive list of quotes both in terms of length, credentials and that does not involve brazen misrepresentation. However such an exercise would prove little either way.
    The point being that you have to base your opinion off the evidence present and the veracity of the opinions drawn from this evidence. "Not simply some guy said it, so it must be true." If we both produce lists of 'expert' quotes arguing opposite things, the obvious is that one of them must be incorrect.

    Now allow me to talk you slowly through why your last post is particularly idiotic. You are suggesting that if any bias or cases of forgery exist then this totally invalidates all the evidence. This however is a heavily flawed premise. It is not sufficient simply to show that any one study is biased or that fifty years ago an ape skull was forged, you must show plausibility that the vast majority of primary evidence that provides the proof of evolution are either forgeries or so heavily misinterpreted to be completely invalid. Considering so much of the primary evidence is black and white, I think anything less then some substantial evidence that a practice of deliberate forgery and dishonesty was present throughout essentially all of biology and a good many other fields would be required to show even a wiff plausibility for this.

    Considering that the evidence is reported within hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, and is based off millions of physical specimens, and involves multiple independent fields of research, such a fraud would literally involve millions of people. Furthermore considering the majority of the evidence has been studied by multiple research teams, this would require essentially the entire scientific community to be in cahoots, producing entirely fabricated research. As some of this evidence has other practical applications e.g. a lot of medical genetics studies I'm also to conclude scientists apparently don't mind killing people to do this.

    Furthermore since 35% of scientist are also Christians what would be the plausible motive for doing this since Athiest conspiracy would clearly be an insufficient explanation?

    If you truly think this is credible suggestion I'm sorry but there is no helping you.

    *Also if you could be more specific with your criticisms then 'gaps' and 'holes' I'd appreciate it. I'd appreciate it even more if you told me what form of creationism your advocating, so we can see how it compares to the evidence.
    Last edited by Utisz; 05.12.2010 at 10:21.

  4. #84
    Natarian Knight Mazeppa's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.11.2010
    Location
    Admin edit
    Posts
    4,711

    Default

    By the way, how do you post a picture?

  5. #85
    Natarian Knight Woden87's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.10.2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    Because unless you are a scientist/or biologist yourself having been present and/or participating in the various case studies proving all possible alleged variables in support of your revered theory, you must believe on the testimony of others.
    This is not true. The beauty of science is that it presents the evidence and experiments for the reader to review, and (when possible) presents them in such a way that they can be verified by repeated experimentation or examination. So, no, it is not necessary to rely on the testimony of others, as it is entirely possible to draw your own conclusions from the factual reports delivered, and even re-run tests if in doubt of the original's veracity.

    Furthermore, you seem unwilling to consider that the overwhelming weight of both evidence and testimonials lie in favor of evolution; as has been mentioned previously, there were more scientists named Steve voicing their support for evolutionary theory than there were total scientists voicing their opposition to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    Hoping and assuming there has been no bias or forgery in such case studies, which we all know does exist in this world.
    Science does not by any means "hope or assume" that there is no bias; it operates under the assumption that there is bias, and therefore research is generally not held to mean much of anything unless there is corroborating evidence from other sources. The sheer number of independent double-checks that occurs with any well-supported scientific knowledge makes your claims of bias and forgery not just unlikely, but simply ludicrous.

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    (Especially when the majority of such studies are trying to prove evolution, not creation.) How can you be so sure? You must put faith in that, to believe.
    Ha. I need not put my "faith" in anything, since I am able to see the results of evolutionary theory in action. If you would but open your eyes to the world around yourself, you would as well. For example, do you think germs just magically get resistant to antibiotics?

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    You must leap huge gaps and holes;
    Hardly so. Despite the claims of creationists, there is not any great number of gaps in evolutionary theory; most claimed "gaps" and "holes" are the results of various distortions and misrepresentations, or of misunderstandings on the part of the creationists.

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    defy extreme mathematical probabilities,
    I assume that you are referring to abiogenesis, as that is the typical launchpad of the probability flights-of-fancy. First of all, evolution does not require abiogenesis; evolutionary theory works just as well with life starting from a divinely-created bacteria as it does from a lifeform created by abiogenesis. Having said that, the extreme probabilities cited by many creationists are, once again, highly distorted; in particular, one favorite is to calculate the probabilities of modern organisms springing into existence fully-formed, which is not at all what even a cursory reading of abiogenesis theory suggests.

    Rather than type out the many, many problems involved in that argument, I will simply link to the talk.origins page that discusses, and refutes, them in-depth.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

    Quote Originally Posted by zenobia View Post
    The battle for "who's right" will forever go on. Thus, we will just have to agree to disagree, 'tis we end in a conundrum.
    This is, to be perfectly frank, cowardly and dishonest. You are, essentially, claiming that because people will always disagree, it is alright for you and others to lie, distort, and confound with misinformation.


    To this point, you have shown a despicable lack of intellectual integrity and open-mindedness, and a great unwillingness to bring evidence to the discussion. I do not consider you worthy of further debate until you change on those points, and, sadly, I doubt that you will ever do so.

  6. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HAZ94 View Post
    Either way God prefers atheists to theists if he does exist

    1 Atheists are good. Not because they fear Hell in the afterlife, but because they want to be
    2 Atheists sort out their own problems instead of whining to God, i've got news to you. He doesn't give a toss
    3 They don't fight and murder because of him
    I dont do good things because I dont want to go to hell. I just do them. I did a favor for my friend a few minutes ago. Secretly in the back of my head I wasnt thinking that it would save me from hell. I just did it because I was asked to.

    Well, if that's your opinion.

    I've never murdered or fought with anyone because of him. If anything athiests are the ones starting fights about religion. Generally, Catholics are quite accepting. I dont go around saying that people need to stop celebrating Kwanza or Hannakuh. On the other hand, athiests are always trying to stop anything that has to do with God.

    And seriously, who usually starts these religious debates. Athiests.
    Last edited by Spy-der; 06.12.2010 at 14:51.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow~ View Post
    I love Spy-der and I want to be in his siggy.
    Quote Originally Posted by dnnyk
    What would life be like without Spy-der
    Quote Originally Posted by mikening View Post
    Spy is right...Its not a suprise i'm just saying
    Quote Originally Posted by SpOiNgY View Post
    Once again I have to say it, do what Spy-der says.

  7. #87
    Natarian Knight owning's Avatar
    Join Date
    23.01.2009
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spy-der View Post
    I dont do good things because I dont want to go to hell. I just do them. I did a favor for my friend a few minutes ago. Secretly in the back of my head I wasnt thinking that it would save me from hell. I just did it because I was asked to.

    Well, if that's your opinion.

    I've never murdered or fought with anyone because of him. If anything athiests are the ones starting fights about religion. Generally, Catholics are quite accepting. I dont go around saying that people need to stop celebrating Kwanza or Hannakuh. On the other hand, athiests are always trying to stop anything that has to do with God.

    And seriously, who usually starts these religious debates. Athiests.
    As a non-religious person I dont think it is nice to be always confronted with other people religions.
    I live in a catohlic country and I can say that the catholic church is anything but acepting. Always trying to mess with the politics and asking people to vote in right wing parties. We had a referendum about abortion and the priests told people to vote no to the legalization of abortion and that leftists were stupid and people who do abortions go to hell. This year the government legalized gay marriage and again the priests started talking in the masses that people should do big protests against gay marriage.

    Note: Both abortion and gay marriage were legalized.

  8. #88
    Natarian Knight
    Join Date
    12.04.2008
    Location
    Lurking, check outside your window you might catch a glimpse of me
    Posts
    1,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by owning View Post
    As a non-religious person I dont think it is nice to be always confronted with other people religions.
    I live in a catohlic country and I can say that the catholic church is anything but acepting. Always trying to mess with the politics and asking people to vote in right wing parties. We had a referendum about abortion and the priests told people to vote no to the legalization of abortion and that leftists were stupid and people who do abortions go to hell. This year the government legalized gay marriage and again the priests started talking in the masses that people should do big protests against gay marriage.

    Note: Both abortion and gay marriage were legalized.
    Spy didn't say the priests he said "Catholics" which generally applies to the group as a whole not the few in power. The priests though also Catholic are going to be preaching the extreme of the faith when confronted by it, that's nature.

    When talking about the people there is a huge difference. Catholics, from my own experience being raised Catholic and experience with others, are generally "mind your business" kind of people, i.e you do your thing I do mine.

    Also.. that last part makes the entire post unnecessary, all it says is that you posted just because you saw an opportunity to brag.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackPaladin
    Forums are like liquid. People come and people go. I just stand at the sidelines and watch it flow.
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple
    And use a giant hammer to horribly maim anyone who breaks the rules.

  9. #89
    Haeduan Purple's Avatar
    Join Date
    16.05.2008
    Location
    In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.
    Posts
    7,467

    Default

    Nether came first.
    It's cyclical just like the universe.
    Purple Qwrq

    THE FOUNDER OF THE ELITE ORDER OF THE NON SPAMING NATARIAN KNIGHTS.
    I am have returned! 100% Active, 100% inspired! Read The Mod comic -
    Weekly Updates

  10. #90
    Thorned Warrior
    Join Date
    21.11.2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Utisz View Post
    Your responses are becoming increasingly absurd

    Yes, it was meant to, being said from a total skeptic's point of view, and not that of my own.



    The point being that you have to base your opinion off the evidence present and the veracity of the opinions drawn from this evidence. "Not simply some guy said it, so it must be true." If we both produce lists of 'expert' quotes arguing opposite things, the obvious is that one of them must be incorrect.
    Yes, I do agree with that.

    what form of creationism your advocating, so we can see how it compares to the evidence
    Not that it obviously matters, as there are multiple ideas on both sides of the issue. I do, however, find it more plausible that an intelligent Creator is responsible for life, as opposed to some accidental chance.
    Last edited by zenobia; 07.12.2010 at 02:56.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •