CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Most creationists do not understand evolution, I reckon. Though to be fair, many laymen supporters also don't understand it. This is to be expected of any sufficiently comprehensive scientific concept. One persistent misconception is that evolution is linear (thus the "If man evolved from apes why are there still apes" type questions that are so frequent), creationist apologetics do nothing to dispel these. Although I appreciated it when AiG (Answers in Genesis) ran their "Arguments we think creationists should avoid" article, to at least begin to police up some of the misconceptions, hoaxes, and other bad information that has been circulating in creationist rhetoric for so long, but unfortunately they took it down.
Wow, thanks for giving that scripture reference. Quoting the Bible implies you believe it is a reliable source. Yes, Ignoramus, I'm aware of Genesis 2:7, and since you seem to believe the Bible is dependable to support your beliefs, I'm sure you also believe Psalm 100:3, Psalm 95:6-7, John 17:3, Job 10:8, Jeremiah 10:10, Psalm 139:13, Psalm 149:2, Ecclesiastes 12:1, I could go on and on.......
And remember that in the verse you seem to think supports belief in evolution, that when God had formed man of the dust of the ground, it was a lifeless body with nostrils until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Seriously, are you that stupid to pick one tiny phrase out of the Bible, ignoring the sentence the phrase is taken from, and stand on it while rejecting the rest of the Bible? If you don't believe the Bible, you make yourself a liar by quoting from it to support your argument. Only a liar would use a source he believes is lies as a support for his argument. You chose an appropriate screen name, and because of the character you display there really is little reason anybody should not honor the request implied in your stupid name.
why don't you just ignore yourself? you're hoping to negate yourself in death so you don't wake up in Hell, so the best thing you can do is to ignore yourself.
While it would allow the biblical creation myth to not contradict evolution on this particular point, I don't think it supports evolution - I think it eviscerates your argument from incredulity that the origin could be clay, etc.
God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
That is not evolution. You have to be ignorant to believe evolution is part of it.
God formed man of the dust, with nostrils, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. God did not form amoebas which morphed into man and were some kind of critter breathing before it had nostrils.
You don't think that is your problem, and it's why I ignore you for the most part.
Your response to "I don't think it supports evolution"
is "That is not evolution. You have to be ignorant to believe evolution is part of it."
??
Again, it just points out that you can't claim evolution is silly because it says the process could have started in clay without calling biblical creation silly for the same reason.
God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
That is not evolution. You have to be ignorant to believe evolution is part of it.
God formed man of the dust, with nostrils, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. God did not form amoebas which morphed into man and were some kind of critter breathing before it had nostrils.
You don't think that is your problem, and it's why I ignore you for the most part. The Bible clearly says the origin of life is God, and clearly rules out evolution. Christians who believe in evolution disgrace the Bible and people like you who do not believe the Bible but try to use it in support of their arguments show themselves to be liar as they use a source they uphold as a lying source to support themselves. It's dumb, and you just go on and on and on running circles of ignorance trying to waste my time like you are wasting yourself.
If you are not smilingbobs, and both of your person's complete frauds, then you are so perfectly brainwashed that you both sound like Dawkins' trained parrots.
I'm not interested in your assertions of knowing more than God, you do not impress me with your anger towards God and towards people who try to tell you that you can be saved from Hell. I'm sorry I can't help you, I don't have time to argue with you while you are being pulled down to Hell by your sin.
True, but most evolution proponents do not understand it all that well either IMO. They favor it insofar as it confirms their views, and overlook it were it does not. Morality being a prime example, for instance.
The overwhelming majority of people believe morality actually exists, as an absolute and objective standard independent of our conception of it. Under an evolutionary account, morality is nothing more than a subjective behavioral and cognitive disposition lacking any such external reference point. It is like religious faith, or etc, in that it serves a clear evolutionary function and so morality can just as equally be explained away as can god(s). If that does not clarify, let me know and I can elaborate further.
Evolutionary function explains the existence of the subjective conceptualization of morality, just as it can explain religion. This does not mean that an actual morality exists any more than it would mean an actual god exists.
It is mostly because they are not taught what is science or the scientific evidence. For creationists, scientific evidence to many creationists is like: "there are nine planets, nine is three times three, or three to the second power. There are two testaments of the bible and God is a trinity so the planets are evidence for the existence of God! Take that evolutionists!" But to be fair, most people don't learn how science works even if they go to college.
Really? How much have you read on that website, and can you quote the things there which are stated without scientific data which can be tested and observed?
There isn't a shred of science in the story of evolution....it's all make believe
I read enough to know it wasn't science. I read enough to know that it is just a website complaining that evolution knocked it out of the park and they can't do any better.
Your responses to actual science prove that you are incapable of evaluating what is actually science. I love the childish response of just repeating what I said against me.
Most creationists do not understand evolution, I reckon. Though to be fair, many laymen supporters also don't understand it. This is to be expected of any sufficiently comprehensive scientific concept. One persistent misconception is that evolution is linear (thus the "If man evolved from apes why are there still apes" type questions that are so frequent), creationist apologetics do nothing to dispel these. Although I appreciated it when AiG (Answers in Genesis) ran their "Arguments we think creationists should avoid" article, to at least begin to police up some of the misconceptions, hoaxes, and other bad information that has been circulating in creationist rhetoric for so long, but unfortunately they took it down.
Why was it hard to understand before now? How can you say you understand it better now? You see how it works now? I never had any trouble understanding it, the concept is very simple, and if you want to believe it there is little to understand.......something kabillions of years ago caused a living cell to appear in a bowl of toxic soup which was constantly being struck by lightning. Then it turned into people. The rich people had cars, and they drove around with their arms sticking out the windows. The sweeping effect of the wind caused the hair on their arms to spread and grow into feathers and they became birds. The poor people lived on and didn't know what to do with all the cars left behind by the birds, so they returned to the stone age, trying to catch the birds to eat. The birds and the people all had the same great grandmother which was a fish, so we evolved with this fishy story....and we have the evidence in the fossil record so we know it's true and if you don't believe it you are a moron.
See my post below on how I believe most of you guys do not know even the basic premise of which you argue against. Evolution.
And you, sir, just proved me correct.
The primordial soup was not toxic.
But rather, rich in nutrients.
The lightning strike hypothesis is just one of the several ways that Abiogenesis could have been augmented. It is by no means the only, and indeed has fallen out of favor of late.
The first living cells did NOT turn into people!
Really? Is that how you think it works?
Wow. Again. You prove the premises of this debate.
The species you call People did not evolve for another 2.9 Billion Years!
I have seen lighting kill people and kill animals, I have seen lightning cause fires and cause trees to literally explode, but I have never seen lightning cause anything to get better. Can you show me a video of lighting under any circumstances causing anything to improve in health, order, or complexity?
Can you give me any good reason to believe the lightning strike hypothesis? How many times would you have to witness lightning destroying living and non-living things before you abandon the lightning strike hypothesis as causing life to emerge in a nutrient rich solution?
What are some of the other hypothesis for abiogenesis, as I find it extremely difficult to believe lightning caused life to emerge in soup, be it hypothetical primordial soup or be it Campbell's Soup.
If the first living cells did not turn into people, what is the origin of your life? Where did your life come from if it did not come from the first living cell? I'm asking an honest question for which I hope you can provide honest answers.
Since the time I first understood evolutionary belief when I was around 5 years old, I have found no solid answer for these questions and I'm asking you, a real life biological scientist, to help me see what evolutionists tell me I am missing.
So you say people evolved after 2.9 Billion Years!, but they did not come from the first living cell? Where did they come from if not from the first living cell? Where did YOUR life come from, if not from the first living cell, and please don't tell me an alien named Frankenstein put you together. Pardon my humorous jabs here, but I took second place in high school mock elections for the best sense of humor and prior to that, when I was quite the teeny weeny little meany, I was known as the king of the cut downs. (it didn't help my demeanor and manners after taking some martial arts training and discovering in life or death street fights with myself against groups of punk azz niggas that God determines the outcome of battles and He chose to preserve me....up until this point at least, and I do believe God's purpose in preserving me is partly to testify to you of His wondrous love for you..... by putting war in my bones when I black out after the first attempt to inflict injury on me by my enemy) I can't look at evolution as anything but a hoax, and it is normal for people who really believe in it to feel insulted.....so my humor comes naturally and you will naturally feel insulted thought that is not my intention. I simply want you to answer the questions I have regarding belief in evolution and give me something tangible which will compel me to believe the things you are upholding to be factual.
Thanks!!!!
You haven't really helped me, but I'll thank you in advance for trying again, and I hope you are having fun.
There have been many times when I was only a heart beat away from never having had the chance to try to tell you that you can know your sins are forgiven and your home is heaven if you will know what I know for myself as so many of my friends know the same for themselves and their desire for you is the same as mine...which is to know God's life-changing love in reality.
Pardon me for rambling, but I get carried away when I know I'm going to win a game....this kind of attitude got me in a lot of trouble when I played pool at bars, told the clowns I was going to beat them and told them how, grinned the whole time I was shooting......sometimes I just threw the game at the end to avoid a bar brawl. I didn't play for money, and always advised anybody not to bet on or against me.
Well I hope you are having a wonderful day.
P.S.....throughout history from the time that haters crucified Jesus Christ, anti-Christians continue to become enraged at the idea that Christians claim to know they are forgiven and going to heaven and they claim to know that unbelievers are condemned and will end up in the fire of Hell if they won't repent and believe on the risen Savior. After a while, they become so angry at the thought of having to work forever paying off their sins by spending eternity in prison of fire, they decide that anybody who tries to tell them this should prove they really believe it by being tortured and/or executed to see if they will recant their faith. Jesus told His disciples to expect such treatment from unbelievers; to expect them to hate His disciples the same as they hated Him. I know why you wanted to beat me up, and I knew you were not a serious threat because the laws of the land at this time protect me....but that is changing rapidly with perverts trying to force me to allow them into the wrong restroom inside my church. Battles are coming if Jesus does not come first to take His people out of this messed up world.
Probably so. They know enough soundbites to throw back at you, but like a parrot, they are just repeating what they heard; no real understanding is involved.
It is mostly because they are not taught what is science or the scientific evidence. For creationists, scientific evidence to many creationists is like: "there are nine planets, nine is three times three, or three to the second power. There are two testaments of the bible and God is a trinity so the planets are evidence for the existence of God! Take that evolutionists!" But to be fair, most people don't learn how science works even if they go to college.
Since there are many definitions of “evolution,” some of which describe actual scientific processes, we must begin by making it clear that the only evolutionary process we are talking about is the controversial one taught in American public schools. A famous court case regarding whether or not evolution can be taught in public schools used the following six-part definition of “the theory of evolution.”
1.Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
2.The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
3.Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
4.Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
5.Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
6.An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.
This is what we are talking about when we talk about “evolution.” This is not the same process as the evolution of the Model T Ford into a Ford Mustang. It is not the same process as breeding horses or corn. When we talk about evolution, we are talking about what children are taught in the public schools regarding the origin and transformation of life on Earth.
How can I prove something that requires your understanding of the question? The question may mean something entirely different to me than it does to you. But even if we were to agree on the meaning of the question, a more important question is, "What makes you think I want to?"
Yeah whatever because i have never brought up my sex life on this site... Go to hell with you're fake ass. Do not ever start making up shit about what i say on here. Becasuase i am not the one talking about fornification. You are not me. go and read ALL of my post from 231 plus days ago. Cause you won't ever find shit about my sex life.
I think Nathan intended this message for you. He knows I don't read his stuff, and you know I don't care about yours, so this must have been for you.
That's not the actual basis of evolution. 1 and 6 are not part of evolution. You can't use non school sources of evolution as the evolution taught in schools. If you want to attack what is taught in school, talk about what is actually taught in school.
Is there anything in your life that you actually have had no trouble understanding? You only ever discuss topics on this website that you don't understand.
I never had any trouble understanding it, the concept is very simple, and if you want to believe it there is little to understand.......something kabillions of years ago caused a living cell to appear in a bowl of toxic soup which was constantly being struck by lightning. Then it turned into people. The rich people had cars, and they drove around with their arms sticking out the windows. The sweeping effect of the wind caused the hair on their arms to spread and grow into feathers and they became birds. The poor people lived on and didn't know what to do with all the cars left behind by the birds, so they returned to the stone age, trying to catch the birds to eat. The birds and the people all had the same great grandmother which was a fish, so we evolved with this fishy story....and we have the evidence in the fossil record so we know it's true and if you don't believe it you are a moron.
I understand evolution is a concept which nobody really knows how it works, a very simple concept. I have no trouble understanding the concept, I do have trouble finding any good reason to believe it is true since nobody can show me how it works without telling me I have to believe it....and I see no proof that they themselves know how it works and I have to conclude that nobody knows how it works though many believe it is the primary active force in life.....where it comes from and where it goes, nobody knows.....never seen it, can't foresee it, but believe it is real now....go ahead and believe it if you want to.
Did that help? If you can't understand English, that's not my problem. I don't know what you are trying to prove. Are you trying to prove you have difficulty with grammatical constructs? If that is what you are doing, take it easy, you don't have to convince me, genius.
I never changed or added to what I said, only saw that you are blinded by your beliefs to the point that you have difficulty grasping clearly stated thoughts.
My rewording in no way contradicted the original statements. You can put the two together and see both are saying the same thing and grammatically proper enough so you cannot show any contradiction.
You are having problems finding contradictions when there are none because your belief system is self-contradictory. You believe you are living but you are dying......so you will say you are doing both at the same time and don't know why. What you are really trying to do is make your own life meaningless, unreal, and free of responsibility for your wrongdoings.....keep trying, let me know how it turns out, but I can already guess without you telling me........nothing but dying.
What's so hard to understand about evolution? Understanding it and believing it are two different things. Maybe this will help you to see the difference....the title is "Evolution for Intellectuals", a gives a brief summary of what is said to have happened over billions of years through evolution.
You tell me. Did you not say "Nobody really knows what evolution is or how it works"?
Understanding it and believing it are two different things
No one has said otherwise. You don't appear to do either. Those who are adamant about their exegesis, rarely take the time and effort to fully understand opposing explanations.
a gives a brief summary of what is said to have happened over billions of years through evolution.
THE REASON NOBODY REALLY KNOW WHAT EVOLUTION IS OR HOW IT WORKS IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING. IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT, YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW IT WORKS BECAUSE YOU CAN NEVER SEE IT HAPPENING, YOU CAN ONLY BELIEVE IT HAPPENED AND IS HAPPENING.
Pompous jerks like you say I do not understand evolution or I would believe in it. There is NOTHING hard to understand about evolution. It's childishly simple, I understood it when I was a small child and it everywhere I turned they were sticking it in my face telling me I'm supposed to believe it. I knew then that they were asking me to believe something they have never seen happening, and I tried to believe it, but knew that if it's true it means life has no real purpose, no real value, no real meaning, and I could not bring myself to the point of ruling out God as the Creator who gives life value because He values it, gives life meaning because He is good and life means God is good because He is the giver of life, and God is glorified by giving life, so life's purpose is the glory of God.
You can have your stinking evolution and enjoy your dying. I'm on my way to Heaven with my sins forgiven, you can have this whole messed up world, there's a better place for me and I guess you will go your own way and get the proof of Hell you say is impossible.
THE REASON NOBODY REALLY KNOW WHAT EVOLUTION IS OR HOW IT WORKS IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING
And yet you said
SaintNow: "I never had any trouble understanding it [Evolution], the concept is very simple"
BECAUSE YOU CAN NEVER SEE IT HAPPENING
What I find bizarrely peculiar is how frequently Young Earth Creationists suddenly become such staunch empiricists when it comes to Evolution (e.g.,"You can never see it happening") and yet believe in a plethora of unobservable phenomena like end-times prophecies, angels, spirits, hell, all without batting an eye. It's absolutely remarkable.
Pompous jerks like you say I do not understand evolution or I would believe in it
I never said that. In fact I distinctly remember saying that there are people who do believe it who still don't understand it.
It's childishly simple
When your level of comprehension of Evolution is "monkeys morphing into people", I can see why you'd think that.
You believe something morphed into people over "billions of years". That is monkeys morphing into people, or "a common ancestor of primates" morphing into people, adding volumes of scientific terminology does not change the fact that you believe a monkey-like critter morphed into people. You just hate the simplification of your beliefs because it's obvious you have to be a sucker to believe it.
You are a pompous jerk, parading around like you are better, stronger, and smarter than God and if you will not repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you will b cast down in your sin to Hell, and you will know it when you wake up in the fire.
Nobody understands evolution, idiot, if they believe it or not. It's all make believe, the only way you can pretend to understand it is by pretending you really believe it........and you really have to be brainwashed to believe some kind of monkey-like critter morphed into people over millions or billions or years or however you say it......in gradual or sudden changes, it's the same stupid thing and you have to be stupid to believe it.
All you want to to is shove your garbage down my throat and stomp on anybody who says you are a programmed parrot who has given up on reality.
Only you would come to a debate site and complain that contrary beliefs are "shoved down your throat". This epitomizes perfectly your failure to grasp the concept of debate.
You're just a royal jerk, and you feed on arguing against God, and you can take it to Hell with you if you want to enjoy your pride forever thinking you are better than God. Somehow I think you are smilingbobs, he was the same way but you seem to be his way of showing his true colors of evil.
So says the man who asks if my wife, mother and sister are whores. Not once have I ever spewed any indignities towards your family. My tolerance of your petulant attitude is wearing very thin. I don't care much for your bruised ego.
It is mostly because they are not taught what is science or the scientific evidence. For creationists, scientific evidence to many creationists is like: "there are nine planets, nine is three times three, or three to the second power. There are two testaments of the bible and God is a trinity so the planets are evidence for the existence of God! Take that evolutionists!" But to be fair, most people don't learn how science works even if they go to college.
Is there anything in your life that you actually have had no trouble understanding? You only ever discuss topics on this website that you don't understand.
I would expect to see a picture of your grandmother with her parents who were some kind of monkey which crossed with an orangutan, and I would expect to see birth certificates for all of them.
Answer me this...does it make you happy to believe that life has no objective meaning and you have no value beyond being the son of a monkey?
So the answer is no then? You don't know one single thing about it. And you are not even going to try, because you are afraid that if evolution is true, then God is false. Well, guess what Sainthuffer, evolution is true and the only thing that rules out is a purely literal interpretation of the Bible. Which any Christian of the age of 16 could tell you: Genesis was almost certainly not meant to be taken seriously. As an adult, you have to be insane or retarded to believe otherwise. Which are you?
ohhhhhhh, thanks for clarifying......now I got it.
Non-living matter plus time equals intelligence. Now I can see how it's untrue to say your head is as hard as a rock because it is the fruit of billions of years of time added to the rock and your head cannot be as dumb as the rock.
And Computer code was created by a bunch of rocks moving around.
books are just black water on tree corpses.
Sex is when two animals bump into each other.
The sun is just a campfire in space.
The biosphere is just a bunch of carbon flying around.
Hearing is the result of tiny balls bouncing into an ear hole.
.
.
The trouble with reductio ad absurdum arguments is that anything sounds absurd when you ignore complexity and reduce a concept to it's barest components. They sound absurd Because things in nature are never that simple, and the origin of intelligence is no exception.
It's true, it took fourscore and twenty kazzillion years, but evolution finally managed to cause matter to become intelligent after the big bang sent it flying in all directions. I'm so thankful to scientists for all the beautiful cartoons they have made showing me how matter turned into molecules and they bumped into each other that they finally got tired of smashing, so they got together and said "let's act like we have brains so we can quit bumping into each other like nothing matters. We know matter matters, so it's time we started acting like it. Then they became a money who after a few million generations look just like my uncle Mike....and that's why they called him Mike the Monkey and he was far smarter than the average bear and not as dumb as the rock he used to be.
So to rebut my argument illustrating how and why Reductio ad absurdum arguments are fallacious, your clever response was to present another Reductio ad Absurdum argument! Brilliant!
It is absurd to believe intelligence came from nonliving matter.
Your comparisons are absurd. You are comparing things that were either intelligently designed like computers or books, are the sun or the reproduction of animals which requires only instinct, not intelligence.....and then the biosphere which is not intelligent but is non living....
The problem with showing the absurdity of believing intelligence came from non-living matter is that is so obviously nonsensical to believe intelligence came from lifeless matter, it makes you look like a fool when you compose volumes of writings trying to explain how you think it actually happened.......and the obvious absurdity irritates you because you cling to your beliefs in hope of getting out of reality in death.
So how is it a gross simplification to say that you believe intelligence emerged out of non-living matter? Is it hard for you to admit what you believe?
Taking things that are obviously absurd and believed by nobody and then implying that is the same as your belief of intelligence emerging out of non-living matter is unrealistic and self-deceptive if not purposely trying to deceive other people.
I don't care how many books and college degrees and doctoral dissertations you use to add billions of years of detail to your story. I understand that you believe intelligence emerged out of non-living matter even though you seem Hell bound to deny that this is what you believe.
And to help with your argument, I suggest that you blur the definition of intelligence into something undefinable and intangible, unexplainable as a metaphysical thing which is not really metaphysical but rather discharges of energy released by chemical reactions which are beyond your control.
It's not me who has trouble understanding your beliefs, it's you by your own words who is unable to define and reluctant to simplify your simple beliefs.....because it all amounts to nothing but death.
So how is it a gross simplification to say that you believe intelligence emerged out of non-living matter?
Strictly speaking it not an oversimplification, it's wrong entirely. No one is suggesting that intelligence emerged out of non-living matter, except for you. Intelligence most probably emerged out of complex multi-cellular animals.
Is it hard for you to admit what you believe?
No, it isn't. And as much as I love being told what I believe by other people, this isn't it.
If you wish to argue a strawman, you don't need me to do it.
At what point did intelligence emerge out of complex multi celled animals, and what did those animals emerge out of? Did they emerge out of non-living and non intelligent matter or did they emerge out of the rocks like your head?
Intelligence emerged in some complex multi-cellular animals, with given biological precursors, in response to environmental pressures. The causation is multi-faceted, which is the point I was making about your ham-fisted attempts at reductio ad absurdums.
By the same line of reasoning cars came from rocks.
So where did the complex multi-cellular organisms come from? Did they come from living things or did they come from non-living things?
So you are telllng me that intelligence was in the multi-cellular animals and was caused to come out of them by multi-faceted environmental challenges?
Can you show me a complex multi cellular organism that has no intelligence and can be observed showing signs of intelligence when it had none before?
Why do you believe these things?
Were the given biological precursors of intelligence intelligent or non-intelligent? If they were non-intelligent, then the matter in the multi cellular animals was non-intelligent and you are still implying that intelligence emerge from non-intelligent matter. Please try to complicate the matter better so it cannot simply be reduced to absurdity
So where did the complex multi-cellular organisms come from?
From single-celled organisms, I reckon. And from there organic molecules, and then inorganic chemicals. The science in this area is still in its infancy. All answers are tentative.
So you are telllng me that intelligence was in the multi-cellular animals and was caused to come out of them by multi-faceted environmental challenges?
More or less. Precisely what factors lead to the advent of intelligence, I cannot say. As even single-celled organisms can react to external stimuli, I suspect, Intelligence developed out of this capability. Needless to say we really haven't even begun to scratch the surface, this is by all accounts the horizon of human understanding. That horizon is expanding ever so slowly.
Abiogenesis is nowhere near as established as Evolutionary Biology. There is still a lot of groundwork that needs to be laid.
Can you show me a complex multi cellular organism that has no intelligence and can be observed showing signs of intelligence when it had none before?
No.
Why do you believe these things?
That depends upon what you mean by "these things". Regarding Abiogenesis, we still don't really understand how life began and it wouldn't be fair to say I believe much of anything regarding it, but I entertain it as the most viable explanation to date. Evolution on the other hand, the body of evidence is much more robust to say the least. We can say with certainty that current biodiversity is the latest iteration a long lineage that has been molded and modified over the years by selective inheritance and allelic drift.
Sooooo, you a-reckon that single-celled organisms gave rise to multi-cell organisms in which something or some things caused them to acquire intelligence.
You also a-reckon that the single celled organisms came from organic molecules which were non-living. OK. I think we are getting somewhere now......
So living cells had nothing added to them to make them different from non-living matter, and multi-cellular animal became intelligent with nothing added to them? So intelligence is NOTHING!!!!! Now I got it!!!! I got NOTHING!!!!!
Thanks! Now I understand evolution.....I was so blind before.
So you are telllng me that intelligence was in the multi-cellular animals and was caused to come out of them by multi-faceted environmental challenges?
More or less. Precisely what factors lead to the advent of intelligence, I cannot say.
And intelligence was not in single-celled animals, but it was in multi-celled animals? And you have no idea how it got in there, but you can write books about how it MAY have happened and your books prove the story is true?
Also, I have heard that bacteria, single celled animals, have been shown to have intelligence, is this true? If this is true, don't you need to change your story on the origin of intelligence?
Why do you believe these things?
That depends upon what you mean by "these things".
I know you hate simplification, due to the fact that your beliefs may sound absurd when reduced to basic statements. So you believe evolution is the best explanation of the origin of intelligence and of how life emerged from non-life, but you can't tell me where intelliegence or life originated and you believe they both simply happened purely by chance? Or am I oversimplifying? Do I really have to read volumes of books to understand evolution? Yes or no, please, to this last question which I well rephrase as "Do I have to read volumes of books to understand evolution and believe it, or can I simply believe it without reading volumes of books and if I believe it is true, doesn't that mean I understand it?
If I don't believe it, does that mean I don't understand it?"
Regarding Abiogenesis, we still don't really understand how life began and it wouldn't be fair to say I believe much of anything regarding it, but I entertain it as the most viable explanation to date. Evolution on the other hand, the body of evidence is much more robust to say the least. We can say with certainty that current biodiversity is the latest iteration a long lineage that has been molded and modified over the years by selective inheritance and allelic drift.
In this statement, correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying that you do not understand abiogenesis but you believe it happened, and it's much easier for you to believe evolution happened and/or is happening because you believe you have a lot of evidence for it, and your belief plus what you say is evidence of your belief being true proves it is true?
So are you not actually saying that you understand evolution no better than people who do not believe in it?
You have admitted you cannot tell me how the things you believe happened really happened, and then you want me to believe you understand evolution better than me because you believe it happened and I do not?
I understood it the first time I was old enough to get what they were saying about it fifty years ago around the age of five....even then, it was very easy to understand they were asking me to believe things they really have no evidence of, since all they were showing me was nothing more than cartoon animals morphing into different cartoon animals. How old does a person have to be to believe monkeys morphed into people over millions of years? How old does a person have to be to understand they are being asked to believe something without real evidence of the thing they are being asked to believe?
If you want to believe you are some kind of cross between a chip and orangutan, go ahead and believe it. I had more brains at five years old than you have now, retard.
Let me ask you this............ How old were you when you first decided to believe in evolution?
if intelligence came from multi cellular animals, and not from non-living matter, then where did the multi cellular animals come from if not from non-living matter?
If you can't answer simple questions, how can you expect me to believe your story, and how can you expect me to believe your basket is not missing a few weaves?
So tell me where you think intelligence came from, but first define intelligence so I can see if you think it is real. You are avoiding the issue because you can't handle the truth...so tell me where intelligence came from, or tell me what you think it is.....and you know I'm going to make your look like a fool when you state silly beliefs that make no sense.........
Hhahahahhah....just noticed you called me retard. So tell me, what do evolutionist believe regarding the origin of intelligence? Do they believe it emerged out of non-intelligent matter, or do they believe it emerged out of lightning in the primordial poop soup under ammonia and methane atmosphere?
Please explain what evolutionists believe regarding the origin, or even the reality, of intelligence, since you seem to have such an exceedingly and unfathomable understanding of evolution so that you are convince you un-exist in death and you are good with that.
Do they believe it emerged out of non-intelligent matter,
Non-intelligent lifeforms, sure.
or do they believe it emerged out of lightning in the primordial poop soup under ammonia and methane atmosphere?
LOL...when did you go to school? The 50s?
Please explain what evolutionists believe regarding the origin...of intelligence
In a nutshell, some point after single-celled lifeforms emerged, some of them started to respond to stimuli. As they got more sophisticated, they started developing ways to interpret the stimuli, and those methods became more sophisticated as well. This sophistication increased exponentially when multi-celled lifeforms came on the scene. The more familiar they became with their environment, the more they started reacting to it, and started evolving very basic instincts to help them survive better. This led the formation of neural networks. As billions of years passed some lifeforms developed more abstract thinking capabilities, by ramping up the sophistication of these neural networks, which were now organized into brains. And in some species, especially mammals, these brains got very sophisticated indeed....
except yours.
so that you are convince you un-exist in death and you are good with that.
There is literally NO evidence to the contrary. Besides, whether I'm happy about it or not does not effect what I believe. I believe what I believe because of evidence, not emotions.
You believe what you believe because you want to believe it. I see no evidence of monkeys crossing with orangutans to produce your grandmother. The fact that your mother looks like a monkey does not prove she descended from an orangutan. Why you want to believe this stuff, can only be:
You want to get out of existence in death because you know you are guilty and do not deserve to live, and there is no place for you outside of Hell if you reject God's offer to save you from it through the blood He gave to pay your price to buy you back from Hell. It's easier for you to believe in evolution and stay as you are. If you believe the gospel, it will change your life and you know you will be rejected by your piers who believe in hopelessness and meaninglessness.
You believe what you believe because you want to believe it.
Not especially. I believe it because I've read numerous books demonstrating evolutionary understanding, known evolutionary biologists, taken multiple biology classes, mutated bacteria in a lab, and perhaps most importantly didn't let my pre-conceived notions get in the way of learning. YOU, on the other hand....
I see no evidence of monkeys crossing with orangutans to produce your grandmother.
Proof that you still don't get evolution. The reason it makes no sense to you, is because you don't try to understand it. The reason you don't try to understand it is because it make no sense to you. We should call you Tautologynow.
As for the rest of your tired, crackpot spiel...you don't fucking get it, do you retard? I don't believe in God. I don't believe in Hell, I don't believe in eternal life. I do, in fact deserve to live, and so do most other people on the planet.
You're brainwashed. They pumped that garbage into my head since I was five years old, I never believed it. You caved to peer pressure, now you think they are making you smart by inventing nonsensical arguments to support nonsensical ideas while you feel intellectually superior to those who don't believe the garbage you have bought into.
They pumped that garbage into my head since I was five years old, I never believed it.
That's because you never learned a single thing about it.
while you feel intellectually superior to those who don't believe the garbage you have bought into.
That's not the only reason I feel intellectually superior to you.
Besides, I could just say "You caved to peer pressure, now you think they are making you smart by inventing nonsensical arguments to support nonsensical ideas while you feel morally superior to those who don't believe the garbage you have bought into."
Wrongo, oh mighty mind. I know I deserve to die and burn in Hell now because of my immorality. Of all the people I know, I know myself the best and as far as I know I am the worst when it comes to morality. I know what I have done, and I know I deserve to burn in Hell, and I know that never changes. You think you are so good when you deny reality........I think you are a fool.
if you are intellectually superior, why do you publicize a picture of a tattoo? How much more stupid can a person be than to sit there allowing themselves to be bled by poking of thousand of needle strikes?
If that makes you intellectually superior, what can you do to improve your intelligence? Blow your brains out?
Pretty much everyone who has ever seen any of my tattoos has liked them. My parents like them. My skin under the tats is smooth. No noticeable scaring. No mutilated. Also I never got any infections, nor have I ever been denied employment anywhere because of my tats. So, how does that qualify as stupider than thinking that if you show a striped branch to a cow, they will have stripped, speckled or spotted offspring.
You can't make me prove you do not have the right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner. There is only one way I could prove that to you if you wont' believe it when you are not in the fire...I would have to put you in the fire of Hell and I'm not going to do that. You're doing it to yourself and only God can get you out of it. That's why He sent the Savior.....you need to be saved but I guess you want proof of Hell the hard way...that's your problem, not mine.
True. And if God is real, He is allowing me to be blind. He gave me a sense of skepticism and rationality, and then ONLY put his word in a book that repeatedly fails all tests that my skepticism can provide. I'd blame him, but again, I don't believe in him.
And that proves you have the right to exist outside of Hell? It seems to me that your dying would cause you to doubt that being outside of Hell now proves you have the right to be outside of Hell
forever......but hey, you don't have to be afraid.
So you never did anything wrong and nobody can blame you for anything you ever said, did, or imagined, and nobody can blame you for going the places you went, and nobody can blame you for that stupid tattoo which is much like my stupid tattoo (the difference being I admit I did a stupid thing by allowing somebody to perform a blood-letting ceremony on me).
There is nobody to blame so you don't have to blame yourself for anything and nobody can blame you and it's not God's fault for allowing you to be stupid because you do it all by yourself...but you can't be blamed, and you are obviously vastly intellectually superior to me.
Of course I have. But when you do so, you make up for it, you apologize, and you strive to never do it again. I'm not perfect, but I am far from evil.
nobody can blame you for anything you ever said
Sure. And a lot of that I've apologized for, and as far as I know, nothing I ever said led to someone dying, or an innocent person going to jail, etc.
or imagined
If a thought never led to a hurtful word or actions there is absolutely no reason for it to be judged, and any God who would do so deserves no worship. Many of our thoughts come unbidden.
nobody can blame you for going the places you went
LOL, like where? I'm pretty sure I never went into a women's restroom even!
and nobody can blame you for that stupid tattoo
I take responsibility for it, but nobody was hurt except me, and ever since it has healed it and all of my other tattoos have been fine.
There is nobody to blame
Yeah, pretty much. Now you're getting it!
and you are obviously vastly intellectually superior to me.
The proof ball has always been in your corner, dipshit. You are the one saying I save something to worry about it. You know I do not believe you. So get with the proving.
so computer code was not designed by intelligence?
Books were not intelligently designed?
I'll skip over your sex illustration....atheists always want to talk about animalistic sex and be like animals themselves, so I'll skip that one......
The sun is not a fire in space? Does it have intelligence? is the sun a person burning in hell, so it has intelligence but the flames hide it?
does the carbon of the biosphere have intelligence?
what does hearing have to do with intelligence supposedly materializing out of non-living matter?
All you are doing is trying to cover the nonsensical idea of intelligence emerging from lifeless matter, and you are trying to cover nonsense with more nonsense to avoid facing the simple fact that intelligence does not come from non-living things..and if you believe your intelligence came from non-living things, that makes you equal in intelligence to a rock. To believe intelligence came from non-living things, and then try to tell me that your beliefs are intelligent, you would be asking me to be as dumb as a rock to agree with you in the matter......."in the matter"..ha ha...little unintended pun word play there.
You appear to be lost. Let me unpack this for you. My argument was as follows:
.
p1. true concepts can be oversimplified concepts
p2. oversimplified concepts can be absurd-sounding concepts
therefore
C1. absurd-sounding concepts can be true concepts
.
This is a hypothetical syllogism, and a valid argument. Nowhere in this argument did I say anything about being designed, or intelligence-derived. These are entirely irrelevant to the argument I made.
You are still avoiding explaining your beliefs on how evolutionists explain intelligence. The closest you came was to say it emerged from complex multicellular organisms. How did those things get the ability to cause intelligence to exist, and where did those multicellular organisms come from? You have given me NOTHING but your beliefs, nothing logical to explain the existence of intelligence, for crying out loud I can't even get you to admit you are not sure intelligence actually exists, or if it is something that appears to be intelligent but in reality is unintelligent results of chemical reactions within the brain.
you tell me it's so hard for me to understand evolution, but you can't give simple answers to simple questions....
Now please explain, after you asked me to believe maybe intelligence came from complex multi-cellular organisms, where did those organisms come from? And at what point did intelligence actually begin to exist?
Are you sure it's me, and not yourself, who does not understand evolution?
And if you can't define and explain the origin of intelligence, how can you claim to understand anything at all?
your whole equation is the same as matter plus nothing equals intelligence.
You put time in there like it gives life. Life does not come from time unless time contains life. Your reasoning is nonsense, and you have to be an idiot to believe it.
what is time without life? it's nothing. Your argument is unscientific, it's a belief system, philosophical, and hoping in futility so you can believe you have the right as a sinner to exist outside of Hell. Wake up man, you're as good as in the fire now and you need to be saved from it.
macro-evolution is not evolution at all. There is no such thing as evolution. All of the critters you are pointing to never change from being the critter they are. A frog never turns into a turtle.
Those things are simple concepts which you are trying to expand into things they do not represent, such as "selective inheritance" or whatever you call it....they are always coming up with new phrases to name the simple concepts of evolution which is believed to be driven by natural selection and survival of the fittest.
The selective inheritance you refer to is never seen in nature to lead to anything more than adaptation to environments when latent genes are triggered by conditions stressful to the current genes dominant in the animal. That is not evolution. To say it is in reality evolution is a leap of faith as lizards are never seen changing into birds, they always remain lizards in the scientific and biological sense.....only in belief of evolution are they changing into birds or aliens or whatever life form you might imagine.
The term coined by the Richard Dawkins of the Seventies was "biochemical predestination". There is always somebody in the strawberry fields forever land of evolution who comes up with a new way of wording things by which they write a book to explain it. It's not hard to understand. It is hard to understand why anybody believes it, and I'm asking you to help me with that.
Thanks!!!! I hope this helps you to help me, because you haven't been much help so far as I try to find good reason to believe in evolution.
The term Selective Inheritance has been around in Evolutionary Biology circles for over 150 years. Going back to Darwin in his book, On the Origin of Species.
What's so new about it? Is it not simply an expansion of the term "survival of the fittest", or of "natural selection", or both? Saying the same thing in different words is not new, is it?
Evolutionists simply cannot deal with people who don't believe what they believe, so they make up new phrases and write new books and say "you don't understand, you didn't read the book".
Survival of the Fittest
Natural Selection.
Lizards laying eggs and chickens hatching out of them, and your grandmother's second cousin was a cross between an orangutan and a chimpanzee.
What's so hard to understand? I think I got it now.....THANKS!!!!!!!
Survival of the fittest is not the same as Selective Inheritance.
And Darwin loathed the former term, and it does not appear in his books.
But, ya know? I think perhaps the single one aspect of Evolution you guys don't get is the immense period of time it took.
I truly feel evcen the most scientifically savvy of you fail to appreciate just now long Three Billion Years is!
Look....
If each generation of us had a picture taken of it, on normal photo stock, beginning with our origms as single celled microbes, and ending with the advent of the homo sapiens, and all those photos were stacked in a pile..guess how high the pile would be?
Four miles high!
Let that sink in for a moment. Please.
Now then, don't you think that is ample time for an organism to make use of its advantageous genetic traits and adapt and conmtinue to thrive? In its specific environments?
To begin what we call it a Descent With Modification?
It's all the same. You believe in evolution, animals morphing into different animals over time. You can add billions of big words or billions of years, it's still the same old simpleminded hypothesis.
Tell me how long three billion years are...I mean from your own personal experience since you claim to know better than me what 3 billion years is.
The last I heard, a billion is one thousand million, so three thousand million is one billion. Is this supposed to be something like rocket science? Please, really?
So there was soup, and it was much like poop.
The storms did rage and spun it like a hoop.
Some lighting struck and some rocks fell in,
One more splash and life will begin.
Suddenly it was there, making copies of itself
It got it's DNA off the poop soup shelf
soon it had a spine and eyes to see
and I'm not bragging but it looked good....it looked like ME!!!!!
That's why I am what I am today,
A pile of wet dust descended from da clay!
I'm rappin and I'm crappin cuz I really gotta go,
Making more poop soup so new life can grow!!!!!
Amen, brother. I think I got it now...I'm evolving.
I've seen lots of pictures of all the generations evolutions say is proof that it really happened,,,,, the only problem is that the pictures are all fake. They don't even pretend to be real like the pictures of bigfoot and aliens all over the internet.
a stack of pictures four miles high, and all of them imaginary? and that's proof of evolution, and if I don't believe it it's just because I don't understand evolution?
Now then, don't you think that is ample time for an organism to make use of its advantageous genetic traits and adapt and conmtinue to thrive? In its specific environments?............
Ummmmmm, no, I don't think even a hundred billion quintillion kazillion years is enough time for something impossible to happen.
I replied there, explaining why I need more help to believe in evolution. I guess you haven't seen my reply yet.
All of the following are rewording of the same idea of adaptation of animals to better survive in changing circumstance equals lizards turning into birds....except the last one which I assume you belief is when a lizard actually lays an egg and a bird hatches out of it. Am I correct?
Selective Inheritance
Descent With Modification.
Or the difference between Selecting Out and Selecting In.
Or Punctuated Equilibrium.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but are not all of these things simply verbal expansions of the hypothesis of animals changing into different animals following the driving forces of natural selection and survival of the fittest? I really don't see what is so hard to understand in evolutionary belief. Please help.
this question is broken. Like many questions here. I am a creationist, but have no desire to argue against evolution. but I mean, since I understand it I could argue against it. but I believe it, so I'm not going to argue against it....savy? you say this like they're mutually exclusive. like you can't be a creationist and believe in evolution....
Citing the definition is usually not a good thing to do. but I feel like I'm left with no choice, as maybe we're having a bit of confusion here.
-
"Creationism is the religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation.""
-
if all things came from god, IE there was nothing,(Truely nothing) and then poof there was matter, that would fufill the notion of creationism? correct? as anything that happened after would still be a result of a "Specific act of divine creationism" the poof at the beginning of time.
You have now changed what you were talking about. You specifically stated that the acts done through evolution were specific acts of divine creation even though you are admitting they aren't now. You are now revealing that the answer to my original question where does God stop was right after creating the first life form.
Quite Right. sorry. I think I'm missing a bridging piece of information.
-
"God" the notion is omnipotent so he has the power to do anything. which usually with the notion that he is omnipresent means that whatever happens he's Responsible for everything. If something started to happen that he did not want to happen, he would have the power and knowledge that it was happening to intervene. if he was responsible for the creation of all things. and Allowed/Caused Evolution to happen, then he's still responsible for evolution and responsible for all it (And by transit him) creates.
-
it's vaugely like... if you mix the two chemicals that make nylon, chemical processes are still running, but you were the one who initiated and allowed them to run. IE you made nylon. or at the same time if someone was about to mix the chemicals that made nylon, you knew fully well what they were about to do, and had the power to stop it and did nothing to stop it, you too made that nylon. except where you are god, and the chemical processes that make nylon are evolution.
There is a huge difference between giving credit to God for evolution and thinking that God used specific divine actions to diversify life. Believing that God directly created the universe, then directly created the first life form, then just let life proliferate is not Creationism, that's just believing in the God of the gaps.
I believe that god set forth the rules of the universe. which means he created evolution, as well as the first organism. technically speaking he created the whole universe, and the rules that govern it, before life on earth was even a thing.
-
Suppose he set life in motion, and by transit set evolution in motion. could not any change in the environment that he preformed (Such as "Acts of God" like say, storms) that killed creatures be selectively diversifying and thus be creation by his hand? and as such still be his creation? since he created the framework of evolution by creating life in the first place.
-
what's more, positing some form of determinism allows for the possibility that he created life in a precise way that would allow it to become something greater. precision placement of the first life form allowed for all time to happen the way it did. I'm thinking that's where we're getting off track, assuming that he could not create the rules of evolution, or of he did not/could not couldn't still use those rules to his advantage.
-
in summary, I would think he would had to have made the rules (like evolution). if he didn't he wouldn't be omnipotent as the rules would be a set limit to his power. if the rules were a byproduct of his creations,(Which might be what you're saying?) then he still had the capability to plan their placement, environment and more, which meant he used the effect of the rules to his benefit. causing human kind to sprout up as a planned consequence of putting life where he did with the environment that it had.
if you cut the branches off a bush to make topiary you are destroying the bush to set fourth a work of art. you are destroying to create. this is the case for human creation, why not for divine?
-
I think that maybe this is the point where we simply agree to disagree, because I think this is more a matter of how we use language, then what the case actually is.
If you are responsible for the formation of something, and at the same time gave that formation a framework to exist upon, that without it, the formation could not exist, you are responsible for it's creation, and as it runs by the processes that you set fourth if you allow it to continue, in the sense that you had the knowledge and power to prevent it from growing, then you are responsible for it's creation in it's Entirety. so far as I can tell you are saying that "Responsible" doesn't mean "Actually created" which is nonsense. in the system of belief I present, a world without god means a world without existence. therefore the natural world is a direct product of his existence. therefore he created everything.
-
I'm not seeing how "Being responsible for the universe's existence" and "Creating the universe" are different things. and as I said it may be a language issue as you may be thinking "responsible for the universe's existence" is said in more of a sense that he is the Keeper of all things. that's not what I was saying.
-
God Is responsible for the Creation of the universe. and all things in it. taking a deterministic view he allows for the world to happen the way that it does, I take a soft deterministic view but for now, that's not relevant. by Allowing and in some cases planning the world to unfold the way that it does, he is ever present in all things that happen. which entail any processes by which new creations are made even if they are made by human beings, or other products of his creation.
if you cut the branches off a bush to make topiary you are destroying the bush to set fourth a work of art. you are destroying to create. this is the case for human creation, why not for divine?
You are creating art, not a bush. No one gets credit for making a bush by trimming it.
I think that maybe this is the point where we simply agree to disagree,
No. Fuck you. You're wrong, by definition.
If you are responsible for the formation of something,
When did the fucking definition of Creationism become "the responsible party involved was God"? That's theism.
I'm not wrong because you're not understanding me. and I don't think I'm understanding you. therefore there's nothing being accomplished by this exchange because your points aren't clear and my points must be equally unclear.so lets try backing up and reaching a point of order, or lets just say "Fuck off you aren't listening to me" and go our own ways. because it feels like you're repeating the same points in the same words and that's not helping me understand your point so I can think about them.
-
"Direct act of creation" I would say is the "poof" at the beginning of everything. there's a point in which the conservation of mass and energy gets bent. for whatever scientific reason that is, God had a hand in it, setting off the cascade that made everything. THAT is creationism. yes?
I'm not wrong because you're not understanding me.
I am understanding you. But, because you aren't satisfying the definition you provided you are wrong.
and I don't think I'm understanding you.
That's because you are ignoring the definition you provided.
and my points must be equally unclear.
No, I fully understand you. Your points are just wrong. You provided a definition, then didn't do anything to show that your ideas match that definition.
"Direct act of creation" I would say is the "poof" at the beginning of everything.
Ok, so you view the creation of the universe as a creationist.
there's a point in which the conservation of mass and energy gets bent. for whatever scientific reason that is, God had a hand in it, setting off the cascade that made everything. THAT is creationism. yes?
No. Being indirectly involved with the process is not being directly involved with the process.
okay, we're making a bit of progress here now I think,
-
what constitutes then, directly being involved with the process? you said that the lightning bolt wasn't a propper way to be involved. as that was destruction. but that would constitute course correction on the process, wouldn't it?
-
This all assumes that he'd even need course correction. to some degree, could not the "poof" set it all in motion exactly as he planned, and thus all creation was by his hand? Or do you think I'm missing somthing? because to plan all the rules and plan all the processes and implement them in an otherwise chaotic world ruleless world, that could still be a "specific act of creation" no?
You are only describing one specific act of creation. You wouldn't be considered a creationist to anyone. Everything you are talking about is indirect and not specific.
If I was to posit that "Many creationists do not understand evolution enough to argue against it" then All I would need do is refute any argument coming from a creationist against evolution. since their arguments against it would not be convincing, with a little cited evidence here and there, the point would be proven.
-
If I was to attempt to refute that "Many creationists do not understand evolution enough to argue against it" I would have to site sources of a convincing argument against evolution as made by a creationist. which is convincing and holds true. which effectively there are none because you'd Still have to be fighting against a notion with far greater evidence.
-
You make three conditionals with one statement which does not make for a good question to debate as the "This holds false" camp has the deck literally stacked against them to the point that your question is meaningless. I can prove that many People understand evolution, and likewise I could prove that there are creationists who understand evolution. and I could probably find a reasonable creationist argument relating to evolution. but to Prove that the many have a grasp on it, is an impossible to attain and worthless notion, as most creationists that fully understand evolution chose to assimilate it, not argue against it. you cannot create a effective "true VS. false" debate where you're not only asking three distinct conditionals, but also positing that a group cannot do something effectively. it'd be like asking "is it true many white men can't jump"
--
in different, perhaps more clear words the "True" camps has a script list like this:
1.Is the Person a Creationist?
2.Does the Person understand Evolution?
3.Can they argue against it?
4. Do they represent the many?
-
for the "true" camp if 1 returns true they go to 2. if 2 returns true they go to 3 and if three returns true then all they need do is refute the argument. if the argument cannot be refuted it goes to four which almost always returns false, and if any of these return false then that entry is not a valid argument against the notion that "many creationists do not understand evolution enough to argue against it"
-
For the false camp the exact same pattern divulges, but STILL remains stacked against them.
1. is the argument a valid one against evolution?
2. is the argument held by a creationist?
3. Does this person represent the many?
-
(extreeme Sarcasm detected in following lines) So... yeah, totally not broken. in fact I bet you'll get soo many convincing arguments! best of luck out there. Might as well ban me now. yah dumbass.
I believe you are not faking your pitiful grammar. I believe you really learned that the way you are spelling your words and murdering every rule of grammar and composition is good.
Questions cannot be broken. They can be misguided or uninformed, or rhetorical statements framed as questions. A description cannot be broken. I can be inaccurate or invented and fraudulent.
Your brain can be broken if a punk nigga puts a bullet in it. Your grammar can be broken by misuse of words, punctuation, and spelling.
what evidence have you that my heart isn't in the right? furthermore, it is my assumption you're speaking metaphorically as the only heart that is "not right" is one that isn't fulfilling it's function of blood circulation. and the only time mine does that is when I'm on certain allergy drugs. which I am not on, as I have developed an "Allergy" to such drugs.
=-P
if you're going to try arguing against me I'd recommend refuting my point rather than doing a personal attack. I already know I'm an awful person. that's why I have the hope there's a god in the first place. so, my point still stands. my question "Have you or have you not stopped fucking that goat's asshole?" is an example of a broken question, and I'm asking you that question. so you either have to say "I have" Or "I have not" no other answers are valid, If there are no such things as "Broken questions". If there are such things as broken questions, this is an example of one. which lets you toss it aside as it removes deniability from an erroneous base assumption where either position of the question admits to you doing this thing. meaning if you say YES or NO you're admitting that you fucked a goat's asshole. the only way to respond correctly to that question is with a non answer. therefore what I have described as "broken questions" exist.
-
if you don't read my shit and refute it Saintnow I will NEVER respond to you again and you'll be locked away in that lovely little echo chamber you undoubtedly love so much. so how about you actually argue instead of just saying random shit. no? Okay then.
I'd simply say "Cool story bro" but there's a hard limit on the least number of characters I can put. Cool story bro, tell it again sometime. or...don't
I'll simply say you are of your father, the devil, and are not my bro, and leave your miserable tail in the dust as I shake it off my feet and walk away.
I'd simply say "Cool story bro" but there's a hard limit on the least number of characters I can put. Cool story bro, tell it again sometime. or...don't
I didn't know questions could be broken. Can you show me how it got broke, and can you show me the pieces which are out of order since they are broken?
I was in the same corner as you, and then you shitposted, not once, but Twice.
--
First. let's get the personal attacks out of the way. I AM BROKEN. I don't claim to be whole. now that we have that done lets get to the actual argument. the one I made in the first post was pretty much amply clear
--
The question is broken because it makes the erroneous assumption that one cannot be a creationist AND a proponent of evolution. I understand that for some (Perhaps such as yourself) believe you must be one, or the other. I however am Both. therefore the question is broken. Because I do not wish to argue against evolution, as a creationist, since Evolution is part of my Worldview.
--
if there's a problem with that, then please I'd love to discuss with you. make a new thread for us to discuss what problems you think my worldview has. I answered the Stupid and broken question here to the best of my abilities. It is False that many creationists do not understand evolution enough to argue against it. But I'm not sure why the question asker thinks you HAVE to argue against it if you are a creationist.
--
your points did nothing to refute anything I said. and were blatant and misguided personal attacks. I tend to not down-vote people, but nothing productive came out of this exchange.
The question is broken because it makes the erroneous assumption that one cannot be a creationist AND a proponent of evolution
Theistic evolution is sometimes called 'Evolutionary Creationism', the view that God created life, and then it evolved with his guidance. Given that Evolutionary Creationists still accept common descent, and selective inheritance as the means by which life has diversified over time, I don't regard Evolutionary Creationism/Theistic Evolution as being Creationism per se. Though this raises an important point: how do we define Creationism?
I have taken the stance that Creationism is the view that various kinds (a grouping roughly equivalent to a taxonomic family or genus) were specially created by acts of divine invocation. If Evolution posits a tree of life, then Creationism must be an orchard. Though historically creationists believed life immutable.
But the appeal to consequence isn't rational. It's an invalid argument. As scary as hell sounds, unless you can show that it actually exists, then it's moot.
Yes Or No, Have you Stopped fucking that Goat's Asshole.
-
Broken question. you say yes. the implication was that you have fucked a goat in the butt. You say no, the implication is that you are still fucking a goat in the butt.
There is an awful lot of faith in far reaching abilities thought capable in biology. Evolution purposes to assembe mutations for purpose of progress, and to further adaptation.
Evolution without a Creator is only selective of biological attractions based on these three basic needs to sustain durability, for survival and to further evolve toward progress through adaptations. But biology has no selection ability for preference!!
This kind of faith in evolution's ability absent a Creator is fairy dust!
It's a heavy acid trip to think evolution without a Creator can manage its designs selective also of preference, attracting mutations that will lead ultimately to design and artistic beauty too. It would actually look like crowded desolate waste with creatures durable and more likely ugly.
Thinking biology can evolve to select mostly beauty is unrealistic!
There are not enough care Bears and fairy dust to sustain that dream!
I'm sure organized artistic beauty can evolved through preferred biological selections for beauty in your make believe word of evolution But really... That's pretty neive faith in evolution's biological focus and creative abilities!
