The scientist who enjoys debating creationists

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2015, 12:33 AM)Beaker Wrote: I have no intentions of changing bfine's mind. I debate with him to show how wrong the creationist arguments are in regard to evolution. They keep bringing up the same points, even though those points are easily shown to be incorrect or false. I refuse to let those points go unanswered. My ultimate goal is that although bfine may not ever accept or be swayed, others reading this who had similar thoughts might read my rebuttals, learn more true facts and see the folly of creation. I take great solace in the fact that I can teach kids the truth, and as they eventually become the next generation, this stupid debate will die off as more and more people realize just how wrong the creation myth really is.

Look at that; we debate for the same reason; it just appears our goals are different.  Your is to hope that someone reading is swayed to believe that everything on land came from a fish that learned to breath and walk; mine, is to hope someone that is reading is swayed to believe in a divine creator and all the gifts that come with this conviction.

I suppose we both have our reasons that we hope the reader is moved.

[Beaker]

(08-05-2015, 12:44 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Look at that; we debate for the same reason; it just appears our goals are different.  Your is to hope that someone reading is swayed to believe that everything on land came from a fish that learned to breath and walk; mine, is to hope someone that is reading is swayed to believe in a divine creator and all the gifts that come with this conviction.

I suppose we both have our reasons that we hope the reader is moved.

Only I have evidence backing my position. You still keep skirting that one.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2015, 12:48 AM)Beaker Wrote: Only I have evidence backing my position. You still keep skirting that one.

You never commented on my Jesus fossil. How can you dispute that?

[Rotobeast]

(08-05-2015, 12:44 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Look at that; we debate for the same reason; it just appears our goals are different.  Your is to hope that someone reading is swayed to believe that everything on land came from a fish that learned to breath and walk; mine, is to hope someone that is reading is swayed to believe in a divine creator and all the gifts that come with this conviction.

I suppose we both have our reasons that we hope the reader is moved.

And I believe that the Hand of God guided that little fishie onto land and taught it to breathe.

Come to my side, Lucie !
Remember how we absorbed the Pagans ?

[orangeandblackblood]

(08-02-2015, 01:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Luckily I have a couple hours to waste today.



This is the second verse.  It establishes that the Earth was completely covered with water...and total darkness. 

Total darkness means there was no light.  (For now we can ignore that the water would be frozen solid and not "raging" with no light.)





This is the THIRD verse.  It FOLLOWS the second.  It establishes that because the Earth was in "total darkness" God created light.

Earth in darkness...verse 2.
Light created...verse 3.

2 and then 3.

Earth and then light.

2 and then 3.

Then LATER God created the Sun and moon and stars.

This will be your one and only lesson in how numbers work. 

If the Earth was formless, then how was it covered by water???

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2015, 01:36 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: And I believe that the Hand of God guided that little fishie onto land and taught it to breathe.

Come to my side, Lucie !
Remember how we absorbed the Pagans ?

So many old tribal religions used the solar cross to represent things, often the four elements. This is why it was so easy for Christians to sway them using the cross because it is similar. But there is a difference in the lengths of the arms. Sometimes (not always) the top is shortened and always the bottom is lengthened. But what does that look like to a Pagan? The top is often air, an element that represents intellect. Shortening that arm shows a lack of focus on it. The bottom is usually fire, the realm of anger, spite, etc. That arm is often double the length of the others in the Christian cross.

Not that this has anything to do with anything, it was just something I was thinking about recently and when I saw something about Pagan conversions I decided to put it out there.

[GMDino]

(08-05-2015, 12:44 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Look at that; we debate for the same reason; it just appears our goals are different.  Your is to hope that someone reading is swayed to believe that everything on land came from a fish that learned to breath and walk; mine, is to hope someone that is reading is swayed to believe in a divine creator and all the gifts that come with this conviction.

I suppose we both have our reasons that we hope the reader is moved.

[Beaker]

(08-05-2015, 12:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You never commented on my Jesus fossil. How can you dispute that?

Nobody doubts that a human named Jesus existed. Again, that is not evidence for creation as the way life proceeds.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-05-2015, 09:37 AM)Beaker Wrote: Nobody doubts that a human named Jesus existed. Again, that is not evidence for creation as the way life proceeds.

Beat me to it. Nor is it evidence that evolution is false.

bfine, how do you know god didn't come from anything and is uncreated?

[Beaker]

[Beaker]

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

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2015, 09:37 AM)Beaker Wrote: Nobody doubts that a human named Jesus existed. Again, that is not evidence for creation as the way life proceeds.

..and nobody doubts those animals that are fossils existed. Again, that is not proof that man evolved from a fish that learned to walk and breath.

[GMDino]

(08-05-2015, 10:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and nobody doubts those animals that are fossils existed. Again, that is not proof that man evolved from a fish that learned to walk and breath.

[Beaker]

(08-05-2015, 10:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and nobody doubts those animals that are fossils existed. Again, that is not proof that man evolved from a fish that learned to walk and breath.

[Beaker]

(08-05-2015, 10:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and nobody doubts those animals that are fossils existed. Again, that is not proof that man evolved from a fish that learned to walk and breath.

First, the shroud of Turin is not a fossil.
Second, even if it were, one fossil taken alone would not constitute evidence.
Third, the sequence of the fossils record, millions of fossils spanning millions of years sequenced to show increasing complexity and diversity, certainly does serve as evidence to point to evolution as the way life proceeds.
Finally, you are still saying proof when you have been repeatedly told we are talking evidence. Are you having a hard time understanding the difference, or simply following the creationist rhetoric of using incorrect terms in an effort to confuse?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Quote:same question, what happens when you take your last breath?

Decomposition. Everything else is a guess.

Quote: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!

Other religions teach differently which reduces those odds.

[*bfine32*]

(08-05-2015, 10:31 AM)Beaker Wrote: First, the shroud of Turin is not a fossil.
Second, even if it were, one fossil taken alone would not constitute evidence.
Third, the sequence of the fossils record, millions of fossils spanning millions of years sequenced to show increasing complexity and diversity, certainly does serve as evidence to point to evolution as the way life proceeds.
Finally, you are still saying proof when you have been repeatedly told we are talking evidence. Are you having a hard time understanding the difference, or simply following the creationist rhetoric of using incorrect terms in an effort to confuse?

Yes, science can show how a bird became a "better bird" through fossil evidence and Natural Selection. Is there any evidence that shows a fossil transitioning from one species to modern day man?

How many fossils does it take to consitute evidence?

[GMDino]

(08-05-2015, 10:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, science can show how a bird became a "better bird" through fossil evidence and Natural Selection. Is there any evidence that shows a fossil transitioning from one species to modern day man?

How many fossils does it take to consitute evidence?

[Rotobeast]

(08-05-2015, 11:03 AM)GMDino Wrote:

I'm sorry, but I'm going to call BS on that.
I know half of these cats.

[fredtoast]

(08-05-2015, 12:44 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Look at that; we debate for the same reason; it just appears our goals are different.  Your is to hope that someone reading is swayed to believe that everything on land came from a fish that learned to breath and walk; mine, is to hope someone that is reading is swayed to believe in a divine creator and all the gifts that come with this conviction.

I suppose we both have our reasons that we hope the reader is moved.

You mean the gift of claiming you are right all the time without having to produce any evidence at all?

No thanks, for me that just takes all the fun out of debating.