The scientist who enjoys debating creationists

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2015, 08:14 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How do you know god didn't come from anything and he is uncreated?

I have grown tired of answering the same question repeatedly that you have yet to answer.

Now let's see if you will answer a question.

What do you think/believe/know has always been?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-04-2015, 08:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have grown tired of answering the same question repeatedly that you have yet to answer.

Now let's see if you will answer a question.

What do you think/believe/know has always been?

Actually, that is the first time I asked you "how" do you know. It is an etirely different question than what did god come from.

If god has always been and is uncreated, how do you know?

To answer your question, I don't know.

[Devils Advocate]

(08-04-2015, 07:18 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Sure thing. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

This article lists multiple definitions of 'species', which is pertinent because defining 'speciation' is dependent on which definition the biologist accepts. From this they can 'glibly accept' speciation occurs. This is the summation of this article.


I fully admit 99% of that article is above my pay scale. Still, it only hypothesizes speciation. It is a theory, despite what this article 'infers'.

Now, I'll continue to read it and even reference it as long as I partake in this thread. And if I've misunderstood anything, please correct me.

It did not show a housefly turning into a bumble bee or even a primrose turning into a fern. A Labrador and a poodle still create a dog. That's the 'speciation' in this article. A new primrose? Sorry. That doesn't count.

And what about the second question?
Care to explain why/how homosapiens burst onto the scene?

[GMDino]

(08-04-2015, 08:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have grown tired of answering the same question repeatedly that you have yet to answer.

Now let's see if you will answer a question.

What do you think/believe/know has always been?

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-04-2015, 09:29 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: This article lists multiple definitions of 'species', which is pertinent because defining 'speciation' is dependent on which definition the biologist accepts. From this they can 'glibly accept' speciation occurs. This is the summation of this article.


I fully admit 99% of that article is above my pay scale. Still, it only hypothesizes speciation. It is a theory, despite what this article 'infers'.

Now, I'll continue to read it and even reference it as long as I partake in this thread. And if I've misunderstood anything, please correct me.

It did not show a housefly turning into a bumble bee or even a primrose turning into a fern. A Labrador and a poodle still create a dog. That's the 'speciation' in this article. A new primrose? Sorry. That doesn't count.

And what about the second question?
Care to explain why/how homosapiens burst onto the scene?

Mkay, first off... The article does indeed list multiple definitions of species, because there are in fact multiple definitions of species in biology. Note, however, that all of the given definitions have at least one example of observed speciation.

"Housefly turning into a bumble bee"? Do you realize that nobody with even the most basic understanding of the theory of evolution has ever proposed that we would witness such a thing? Do you not understand that evolution is an incredibly slow, gradual process? Even punctuated equilibrium events take many, many years for the type of drastic change (i.e. something being almost unrecognizable next to its ancestor) you are requesting. You are demanding that evolution do something that nobody has ever claimed it would. You're disputing something nobody has said; that houseflies would "turn into" bumble bees right before our eyes. This is called a strawman fallacy.

"That doesn't count"? So descendants that cannot reproduce with the initial species does not count as a new species? You are proving my prediction 100% correct: moving the goal posts.

I don't think I do care to explain ***** sapiens evolution to you, frankly. You may claim to be non-religious, but your MO reeks of a typical evolution denialist, and as I've explained numerous times in this thread, I have zero interest in "debating" reality with such folks.

[GodHatesBengals]

(08-04-2015, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well we all can't improve our level of ignorance.

I've often heard turning a debate into an ad hominem spat is an indicator of a high level of ignorance.

As I've explained earlier in the thread, I happen to be convinced that ad hominem is the best way to deal with your ilk. Willful ignorance cannot be "debated" with, because we have absolutely no starting point. You literally reject science its self.

The best hope for you is to shame you into educating yourself.

[RASCAL]

(08-04-2015, 05:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How do you figure 50/50?  There are literally hundreds of different religions, and way less than half the people on earth are Christians.

If the only thing that makes you religious is covering your ass then you need to start following a bunch of differntr religions because based on the numbers your odds are way less than 50/50.

I NEVER said anything about religion. EVER!! I only speak of my Christianity. So no fred, you are quite wrong as usual, and don't ever put words in my postings that are NOT there. Have a nice day!

[RASCAL]

(08-04-2015, 01:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's still just hedging you bets.

Are you saying you are willing to "believe" just in case?

That's not right either.

That's NOT what I said at all! Read it again!

[fredtoast]

(08-04-2015, 08:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What do you think/believe/know has always been?

I don't know of anything for sure.  But that bis no reason to reject science.

Just look at all the advancements we have made in medicine and technology over the last few hundred years.  The most simple calculator we have today would seem like magic to people from just 100 years ago.  In fact it seems a little like magic to me.  There are no moving pieces yet it v=can make the most complex calculations instantly.  But just because I do not fully understand it does not mean I am claiming it is the work of a magical god.  that would be ridiculous.

[fredtoast]

(08-04-2015, 10:47 PM)RASCAL Wrote: I NEVER said anything about religion. EVER!! I only speak of my Christianity. 

Wait?  What?  Your Christianity is not religion?

[RASCAL]

(08-04-2015, 03:47 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: So believing just in case to make sure I don't go to hell would be genuine, so-called "saving faith"? Doubtful.

The fact is that the odds really aren't 50/50, at least with respect to the Christian deity. The odds are very much against his existence, for the following reasons (and by no means is this an exhaustive list):

1. The universe that exists does not reflect perfect, conscious design. In an enormous universe, we find billions of dead stars, junk planets, wide swaths of lifelessness that have no intrinsic value whatsoever. Out of all these planets, it currently appears that there's just this one little tiny blue sphere where this thing called "life" happens. Why all this worthless material on the side? This does not reflect a perfect designer.

2. The Judeo-Christian creation story directly contradicts all known evidence, and all new evidence continues to contradict it.

3. The traits attributed to your god are often contradictory and inexplicable.

4. Entire portions of history within the book that describes your god are absolutely incorrect. Example: The god who led millions of Hebrew slaves out of the ancient Egyptian empire does not exist, because there were never millions of Hebrew slaves that left the ancient Egyptian empire.

5. The ideas of God reflected in the Bible often seem inconsistent with the idea of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity, but seem entirely consistent with the possible beliefs of a superstitious, patriarchal, primitive group of people at war with their neighbors.


I could go on and on. But 50/50 is giving your beliefs too much credit. I am not willing to meet you half way when you simply don't have that much evidence going for you.

same question, what happens when you take your last breath? If you are NOT willing to believe in God, then it is a 50/50 choice of Heaven and Hell! Simple as that! I have ALL the evidence that I'll ever need, maybe not you need, but I will need!

[Devils Advocate]

(08-04-2015, 10:34 PM)JGodHatesBengals Wrote:

Quote:Mkay, first off... The article does indeed list multiple definitions of species, because there are in fact multiple definitions of species in biology. Note, however, that all of the given definitions have at least one example of observed speciation.

I'll re read.

Quote:"Housefly turning into a bumble bee"? Do you realize that nobody with even the most basic understanding of the theory of evolution has ever proposed that we would witness such a thing? Do you not understand that evolution is an incredibly slow, gradual process? Even punctuated equilibrium events take many, many years for the type of drastic change (i.e. something being almost unrecognizable next to its ancestor) you are requesting. You are demanding that evolution do something that nobody has ever claimed it would.

well at least you didn't try to rationale with a tadpole/frog video. 

Yes it does take time. I'm just asking for proof of speciation, which I haven't discounted outside of my interactions with this thread. It is my understanding, and I could be wrong, I fully admit that, that speciation is missing key components a la the missing link. Go easy, I'm just trying to understand this stuff without accepting it blindly. Isn't it based on assumptions, as I highlighted in my previous reply?

the house fly/bee was a simple analogy to homosapiens in relation to other homonoids. They're not all related, even though they're similar. 

Quote:"That doesn't count"? So descendants that cannot reproduce with the initial species does not count as a new species? You are proving my prediction 100% correct: moving the goal posts.

it isn't my intentions to move the goal posts.  I don't know if that counts or not. I'll get back to you on that one. 

Quote:I don't think I do care to explain ***** sapiens evolution to you, frankly. You may claim to be non-religious, but your MO reeks of a typical evolution denialist, and as I've explained numerous times in this thread, I have zero interest in "debating" reality with such folks.

No bud. I have not believed in God since I was 13 years old. I'm 41 now. only  recently have I began to really delve into evolution. I've always accepted it as fact. But it's only a theory, thus, may not explain anything at all.  You'll find no creationist here. Not in the sense of what you're used to anyway. But what I may believe is irrelevant. I'm simply looking for answers as always. Sometimes I have to play ...well... Devils Advocate to find them. 

[RASCAL]

(08-02-2015, 06:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I, like all the people who understand this, believe both.  Life developed in the seas first, so land animals come from the sea.  But millions of years later man developed from apes that stopped living in trees.

then why do we still have apes? why aren't they developing into humans today??

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2015, 10:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't know of anything for sure.  But that bis no reason to reject science.

Just look at all the advancements we have made in medicine and technology over the last few hundred years.  The most simple calculator we have today would seem like magic to people from just 100 years ago.  In fact it seems a little like magic to me.  There are no moving pieces yet it v=can make the most complex calculations instantly.  But just because I do not fully understand it does not mean I am claiming it is the work of a magical god.  that would be ridiculous.

But what is the basis for rejecting a Divine Creator? The fact that a man can create a calculator? You are just like the OP. You attempt to dismiss a creator by providing an example of something that was created. Not sure you guys thought it through.

[RASCAL]

(08-04-2015, 10:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wait?  What?  Your Christianity is not religion?

not at all pal! I choose not to place myself in a world of any type of religions. Am I religious? You Bet!!! 

[fredtoast]

(08-04-2015, 11:00 PM)RASCAL Wrote: then why do we still have apes? why aren't they developing into humans today??

Apes have evolved just like humans have.  The ancient ancestor of both men and apes was neither a man nor an ape.

[fredtoast]

(08-04-2015, 11:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But what is the basis for rejecting a Divine Creator? The fact that a man can create a calculator? You are just like the OP. You attempt to dismiss a creator by providing an example of something that was created. Not sure you guys thought it through.

Because there is not a single shred of credible evidence of a divine creator.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.  I don't claim to have all the answers, but I try to look at scientific explanations instead of magic to explain things in the natural world.  Science has shown that the Bible can not be literally true.

And the fact that man created a calculator was not an explanation of why I don't believe in god.  It was an explanation of how ridiculous it is to reject scientific.  If you showed a calculator to some one like you from a hundred years ago he would claim it had to come from a magical god because it was too complicated to understand.  Or if you tried to explain germs to a doctor 300 years ago.  The fact that something seems to complicated to understand is no reason to claim it has to come from a magical god.

[*bfine32*]

(08-04-2015, 11:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because there is not a single shred of credible evidence of a divine creator.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.  I don't claim to have all the answers, but I try to look at scientific explanations instead of magic to explain things in the natural world.  Science has shown that the Bible can not be literally true.

And the fact that man created a calculator was not an explanation of why I don't believe in god.  It was an explanation of how ridiculous it is to reject scientific.  If you showed a calculator to some one like you from a hundred years ago he would claim it had to come from a magical god because it was too complicated to understand.  Or if you tried to explain germs to a doctor 300 years ago.  The fact that something seems to complicated to understand is no reason to claim it has to come from a magical god.

It is "silly" to believe in a Divine Creator (magic). But it is scientific to believe live was created from a rock, the rock turned into a fish that one day grew legs, learned to breathe air, climbed a tree, and evolved into every species on the face of the earth. And the "proof" of this is fossils of extinct beings.

You keep being Sciency and I'll keep being spiritual. You'll have to excuse me now, I have to ask my dog why he is taking so long to evolve into a complex being.

[*bfine32*]

Look. Jesus fossil.



How can anybody reject this proof?

[RASCAL]

(08-04-2015, 11:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Apes have evolved just like humans have.  The ancient ancestor of both men and apes was neither a man nor an ape.

I thought you said that man comes from apes. I guess I was wrong!