Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Theism and Atheism

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 9:11pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

That's the big bang theory, right?

The Big Bang deals with how the universe began. (No it doesn't deal with what was "before" the Big Bang, and no it doesn't deal with planetary formation)

How life began is abiogenesis.

mm, I don't think I recall...

I have to wonder why are you arguing against and call it wrong, when you don't even understand what you're arguing against and think is wrong?

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 9:16pm

cowmaster1

cowmaster1

645 posts

ignorance; a state of being uninformed, lack of knowledge. This suites you well with the subject of science and evolution. quote]

Then i am as ignorant as you, unless you happen to be a professor in evolution and science

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 9:20pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Then i am as ignorant as you, unless you happen to be a professor in evolution and science

So now you need to be a professor to know anything about any subject? You can't fix a broken computer without a degree? Only professors in chemistry can use the periodic table? Just by reading this Wikipedia entry, you can get rid of your ignorance.

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 9:22pm

jeol

jeol

3,565 posts

Now you just have to pull the wool from over your eyes and see that I am right...

Right about what? The algebra equation that I was going to give you but forgot?

How life began is abiogenesis.

Yeah, I just got lectured on that by 314d1.

I have to wonder why are you arguing against and call it wrong, when you don't even understand what you're arguing against and think is wrong?

EXACTLY! The... Thingy.. that... ... uh...

Your finding once again that reason, logic, and science are enemies of your religion?

You just don't understand these things, do you? I call it the ___ equation:
C+2=R*L+S-2 which comes out to...
C/RL+X(?)=/=S Dang it... Let me rerun it.
C-S=RL That's better.

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 9:24pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Right about what? The algebra equation that I was going to give you but forgot?

I am correct about science, specifically on abiogenesis and evolution at the moment.

You just don't understand these things, do you? I call it the ___ equation:
C+2=R*L+S-2 which comes out to...
C/RL+X(?)=/=S Dang it... Let me rerun it.
C-S=RL That's better.

Your being irrelevant again.

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 9:27pm

cowmaster1

cowmaster1

645 posts

So now you need to be a professor to know anything about any subject? You can't fix a broken computer without a degree? Only professors in chemistry can use the periodic table

Excatly what im saying.  So what makes me ignorant and you not?  Is it that you've read the wikipedia page?

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 9:29pm

314d1

314d1

3,510 posts

Excatly what im saying.  So what makes me ignorant and you not?  Is it that you've read the wikipedia page?

Pretty much. It is that I understand what we are talking about, while you don't. You don't understand what macro and microevelution is, making you ignorant. I do, which means I am not ignorant about the subject. Any questions?

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 9:32pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

Then i am as ignorant as you, unless you happen to be a professor in evolution and science

No I'm not, I have a working understanding of science and the theory of evolution. If we are on the same level of understanding then your deliberately lying.

Anyway since you didn't like the wiki source how's this?
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils … heory.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tra … art1a.html
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/tiktaalik-transitional-fossil.png

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 9:35pm

Somers

Somers

1,486 posts

You don't understand what macro and microevelution is, making you ignorant

The word ignorant is over used, and in that case, 3/4 of the world are ignorant.

I dislike how this thread was meant to be a friendly conversation, but, as always it turns into this huge fight between wether or not we can prove which side is right. Were never going to make any progress this way.

Going back to the original topic...

I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ.

Pyro, can you explain more? I wanna know the feeling you had, you simply couldnt had of just walked into a church and felt this

 

Posted Mar 29, '11 at 9:41pm

thisisnotanalt

thisisnotanalt

8,475 posts

I hate when stupidity reaches critical mass and I feel like I have to jump in.  Curse you, current WEPR regulars!

Marcoevolution is a theory.

I like poloevolution better.  But on a more serious note, it is a scientific theory.  Meaning that there is evidence all over the place for it and that it has been peer-reviewed and studied and blah-blah-blah and nothing has turned up that would refute it.  You are supporting it by calling it a theory.  Also, it's micro and macro, not mirco and marco.

We can never have a Christian debate on this site without an atheist involved, can we? Sigh...

Don't act like a victim.  You're not being bashed for your views (except for by highfire and 314, but for god's sakes, call them out on that and you win an internet, because it's to your advantage, not theirs), and someone disagreeing with you does not mean that they are bashing you.  You're not being oppressed or persecuted or anything, so the woe-is-me attitude ends up looking like a poor attempt at trying to win the argument with your puppy-dog face instead of your arguments.  And the whole idea of a debate is that there are differing views - having two Christians talk about Jesus isn't a debate.

Evolution is not a part of science, even though many scientists and people like that happen to be scientists. It's sort of like a religion. Christianity is not a science, but it tells pretty much the same thing as Evolution. Different stories, same topic. Science and religion should not be made equal.

Evolution is a scientific theory - the microevolution part of it even universally accepted as fact.  Evolution is not a religion because all it does is detail a very simple, provable, demonstrable, natural process - the adaptation of life forms over time.  It deals with the origin of life as much as Christianity deals with muffin breeding safety guidelines, which is to say not at all.  The acceptance of microevolution is all that is needed to accept macroevolution, because macroevolution is just evolution over long periods of time.

Science deals with what is and also explains things that are, not about what was.

Science deals with everything.  Anything that can be studied and researched falls under the jurisdiction of science.  The past can be and is researched . . . frankly I have NO idea where you got this idea.

That's what I meant - all three religions deal with the real earth.

Calling evolution a religion when it clearly is not is doing nothing to help your argument.  It's a poor attempt at subversion that just makes you look like you're trying to avoid actually arguing your points.

Nope. I didn't. You know why? They probly all said that Christianity doesn't have any evidence and left it at that. You can't prove that there is no evidence. Besides, it's a religion.

Read the links.  They'll educate you - they don't argue against Christianity (I've looked through most of them), they argue for evolution and provide lots of evidence and important facts that make a lot of your points invalid and clarify a lot of things for both sides.  Read.  Learn.

Someone read my link!!! This made me happy. From now on, I will read every link you give me just so long as it's not over two pages in length.

If someone provides you with evidence and you disregard it because of silly bargaining or the length of the article, you're setting yourself up for arguing a point based on misinformation or ignorance, and then they automatically win because they have the facts and you don't.  Once again, read their sources because doing so educates you and then you're not open to being flat-out wrong due to your ignorance on the subject.

Mainly, Darwin observed microevolution when studying the finches.  He then used his observation of microevolution and said that marcoevolution occured.  If marcoevolution were true, we would find fossils to be slowly changing over time, but there are large gaps in fossil records between species that are believed to evolutions of the others.  Due to that gap, marcoevolution can't have happened...... etc. etc.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Mage also happened to have a few links and pictures and such of these transitional fossils, and I'm sure I could find some, so I'll get on that.

So, basically, everyone who doesn't believe in Evolution won't give a scientific answer.

No.  He wants to get scientific support for these religious things you are claiming.  Also, do you have any sources to support the water canopy?  It sounds pretty Creationist-Sciencey (CS for future reference) to me.

Not everything larger is the same but bigger. The numbers, when doubled, most likely will not be the same. For example, if we were ten times larger, we would be dead. I have a source, but it's from a book and I would have to find it. So. If you want it, tell me.

You don't seem to understand the concept of macroevolution.  Microevolution is change from one generation to the next, and it is but a reductionist lens for looking at macroevolution.  Macroevolution is 2 and micro is 1+1.  Nothing else.  There is not some magic fairy dust sprinkled onto macroevolution that makes any different from larger units of microevolution.

But you still admit there are some.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2. Microevolution is not small Macroevolution.

They're different units of measurement on the same timeline.  Macroevolution being a larger unit does not mean that it does not hold the exact same validity as microevolution does.

Seriously? Because we have differing opinions doesn't mean mine is unscientific/logical/rational.  I have stated how the gaps in the fossils disprove marcoevolution.  Is that unlogical?

YES.  YES IT IS.  IT IS IT IS IT IS IT IS IT IISSSSSSS *dies*

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  We shouldn't look at the gaps and think "well, I guess evolution is impossible", we should look at it and think "better do some more digging, because this here fossil record thing is incomplete".

That's the big bang theory, right?

That was the formation of universe, not the beginning of life.  Beginning of life has abiogenesis.

ANYWAY, 314 needs to play nice here - Mage is being nice and cordial as usual - and the Christians need to realize that they don't know what the fazoli they're talking about and learn what evolution actually means and is.  *sighS*

 
Reply to Theism and Atheism

You must be logged in to post a reply!