Religion?

Do you not know puns lol

 

No i just don't get it.

 

Eric Char Velksy
We have a BIG problem here
f this thread

 

ogre means over in the shrek language

 

Spoiler (open) Spoiler (close)

1: Fell off the rocker didn't ya. I keep saying this and somehow you disregard it each time. I said it in my first reply to you, but I'm going to bold it this time so it might actually stick to that pea-brain of yours; EVOLUTION DOES NOT GIVE ANSWERS PERTAINING TO THE ORIGIN OF LIFE ON EARTH, RATHER IT'S DIVERSITY. TO EVEN BOLSTER THIS ARGUMENT ALREADY SHOWS THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN CARE TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT THE SCIENCE ACTUALLY ENTAILS. Yes dude, the human body is complex, and life has had billions of years to constantly grow & improve it's structures through environment, food & resources, predatory species, etc. You guys seem to propose this false dichotomy of "god or goop"; where the only alternative to intelligent design is a human spontaneously generating from mud, or even single celled organisms generating from mud. Please, continue to use this argument against atheists, it's self-mockery on your behalf because nobody claims that's how it happened. Also debate 101, don't use links and videos to fight your battles for you, I couldn't care less. Links and videos are for source use only, otherwise you're wasting your time. If you want to argue origins of life, I urge you to learn about abiogenesis. I wouldn't argue it with me because I myself remain somewhat unconvinced.(mostly due to my ignorance of the subject) I still use it as a credible alternative to creationism, though I'm open to other possibilities.

2: If by "information" you mean DNA, it was attained as microorganisms adapt & more slowly attained as larger organisms evolve. This is like basic evolution, dude. For example, microorganisms like bacteria alter themselves. They alter the target site of the antibiotic, like binding protection proteins to the ribosomes, changing the shape & thus the antibiotic can no longer bind to the ribosome to inhibit protein synthesis. (see; Antimicrobial resistance for this information and more) This is new information, which is then passed on through the infamous gene transfer, the main reason for antibiotic resistance. These organisms can pass on the newly attained info to one another, creating an improved version of the old organism. Evolution at work, right before our very eyes, and new information attained by single celled organisms. Here's an abridged diagram on the before & after during this process;

3: Oh my god, irreducible complexity. I'll tell another why it's actually a pseudo-scientific theory. Evolution doesn't work in a "step-wise" fashion. Evolution is guided by completely arbitrary factors like environment, predators (and level of), resources, climate, and obviously the type of organism we're talking about here. In order for irreducible complexity to make any sense, you have to presuppose that evolution works steadily regarding mutation rates, environmental factors, and most importantly; the rate, ways, opportunities for, and reasons things form. Think of the relationship between dinosaurs and birds in that regard; dinosaurs originally evolved feathers to keep warm, but the reason for this changed as their future relatives became avian & used this for advantages in flight. tl;dr right here; argument from incredulity, presuppositional, many factors not accounted for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity Linking this to show greater depth of info I already provided, not blatantly introducing it to strengthen my argument.
The other argument under the same name flies as, "organisms are too complex for the human mind to understand, therefore a creator had to have been involved". First of all, no, they're not. I just explained to you in the previous post a bit about how single-celled organisms evolve. If you mean to talk about their origins, again, completely separate topic. But secondly, this is fallacious in a couple ways; moving goalpost & one of creationists' favorite fallacious arguments, the false dichotomy. They constantly move the goalpost, ie earthquakes were god's wrath before we knew about plate tectonics, and rain was a gift before we knew about the water cycle. Saying something is too complex to understand is to equate your argument to "earthquakes? god is pissed!" I'm not saying we don't understand microorganisms quite well, but using scientific ignorance to insert your god is by no means a credible argument. + again we have the false dichotomy of "god or nothing" where they believe that if somehow evolution isn't able to explain these creatures (which it can, but they presuppose that it cannot) it must have been their god and nothing other. The problem with this is that, well...you can literally apply that to any imaginable deity & it will make the same amount of sense. Not only that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say evolution was discredited tomorrow...why does that automatically point to god? Why can there not be other science that is stumbled upon that explains it better than the assumed falsified evolution?

Not only that but legit question here, Why do you continue to tie evolution and atheism together? Need I remind you, the pope, one of the most revered religious men on earth, urges the Catholic church to accept the science of evolution. Evolution is science, atheism is the lack of a belief in god. Simply because evolutionary theory causes people to disregard creationism doesn't mean it causes them to automatically become atheistic. A large amount of biblical followers just consider certain passages allegorical.

 

... keep it going guis ...

 

its better here than any other thread, you can't stop religious debates so I wouldn't try.

 

unless char locks it

 

Why would you wanna stop it anyway? This is right where it should be & it's obviously entertaining enough for the two of us so there's no reason why it shouldn't continue. If someone has a problem with it, avert your eyes. It's that simple.

 

did u read the first post?
make another thread and debate there

 

Yeah, I did, and I don't want to make a separate thread just for debates. One of the most obvious unwritten rules of the internet is "do not mention religion unless you want or expect debate".

 

Yeah lol if you make a religion thread expect a debate, especially if FREEZ posts

 

kden lol anyways, wm could u give me the link to the thread in which FREEZ started the religion debate earlier in 2014?

 

1. Okay so you are now saying that there is/was a god of some sort who started it all.

A God you hate, amiright? (don't answer that) Anyways you agree with my first point. It is silly to think that even bacteria came from non-life. (I would also like you to understand that there are people other than you and me reading this thread, and this is also to be for their benefit, not just mine.

2. i would argue that the bacteria in your illustration are not creating new genes, but loosing bad ones. The reason bacteria-to-man evolution seems rather silly to me is because, well, think of it this way: A dinosaur is "evolving" downy feathers for warmth. But there is no reason for it to "evolve" lighter bones, the wings, air bladder, or flight feathers. Any organism that would get any of these traits that are undesirable with out all the fully functioning others present would die off because an addition of those things would make it harder to live. Just like i said about the Molecular machines:

3. I have underlined several points in your quote that I never made. And did you read any of this in my quote or did you just skim over it (This happens allot)

And if evolution doesn't work step by step... does that mean it happens all at once? I don't really think you believe that because you said:

Just look at your diagram! That is obviously steps!

While it "might" not have been the God of the Bible, someone or something (please don't answer me with the "Alien Seed Theory" because who seeded the Aliens?) created the organisms that are on earth today basically how they are now. I'm not saying God created every single breed of house cat, lion, tiger, etc. I think he probably just created a few kinds of cat that then changed into different cats. while there was "cats to cats" "micro"-evolution, there was no "cats to dog" "macro"-evolution.

To answer your question: Because in order to be Atheist, you have to believe in evolution. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I would like to point out that just because the pope believes in evolution DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT! Telling me "Believe in evolution because the pope does" is faulty-appeal to authority. I seriously doubt that the pope has spent his whole life researching evolution. He probably just says that so that he can get smiles from the "scientific" community.

• Now you could tell me "Believe in evolution because *Famous Evolutionary Scientist* does" but his opinion still carries very little weight because the Creation v Evolution debate is controversial. In controversial subjects you can't just reach a (good) conclusion without observing the evidence yourself. If you reach a conclusion just because some one you like reaches that conclusion you are not being very scientific. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU ARE DOING THIS CRYPT. I AM JUST SAYING THAT ANY ONE WHO REACHES A CONCLUSION JUST BECAUSE SOME ONE THEY LIKE (maybe a famous Scientist, Parents, Friends, Spouse, etc.) REACHED THAT CONCLUSION DOES NOT REALLY UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC

 

Crypt I would like to thank you for actually taking the time to research your topic to try to refute my arguments. All to often i get "Shut up idiot evlution is tru u fool" and "DR HAWKINS SAYS ____ SO ____ MUST BE TRUE!!!!"
and people who try to turn what i want to be an argument (actually educated argument is a good thing. AKA "debate") into bickering.

stuff like this:

*cough cough*

 

hey FREEZ u make great points, way to show those dumb atheists!! but whenever i try to debate my atheist "friends" they always say how there is a "scientific consensus" or something that evolution is real! what should i say to convince them that 99% of the scientific community is wrong and an ancient book is right?

 

you cant convince atheists, and it doesnt matter. because in the end they're gonna burn, while you're in heaven, making gainz and having sex with the woman your arch-atheist-enemy once was in love with

 

I have a feeling you are mocking me by the wording of your sentence. But if you are not (I really hope you are serious) Just bring up the points I have about Proteins and amino acids, How did the information get there, and one part of a machine is useless without all the other parts.

OKAY can all you christians out there STOP saying "UR GUNNER DIE ATHIESTS LOL UR SCREWED" because that doesn't get them any closer! Especially after you add the part about sex!

 

1: Please show me where I said that I believe a god started it all. Unlike you, I entertain the idea that my opposition could be correct while still trying to maintain the wall that is my side. That's called being open minded. Try it sometime. LOL no I don't. You're saying that, because I am not fully convinced by abiogenesis mostly due to my lack of research, that I automatically agree with you. You're literally glossing over the fact that I called you out on a false dichotomy only to pull another one out. I don't agree that a god created life, nor do I agree that abiogenesis is a silly idea. I merely remain unconvinced. At least abiogenesis is putting forth evidence. You have no evidence at all.

2: How are they losing a bad gene? They didn't lose anything at all. They attained the info that gives them the ability to change the shape of their robosomes so they are immune to the attack of antibiotics. Just admit you're wrong and have nothing to say on that topic, dude. I just ****** you up there. You can't argue that a new ability isn't new information. It's not possible.

3: Lol Before you outlined your three points regarding evolution, you disregarded my entire reply before that. Don't tell me I'm missing points and glossing over **** when you pretend to concede a few points of mine and don't even lay a finger on the rest. I whooped your ass in the morality stage of our argument. But here, I'll make you happy. "machine is made of a number of essential parts, and all these parts must be present for it to function properly. If even one of these parts is missing the machine is non-functional. Evolution, which supposedly works in a stepwise fashion over long periods of time, can’t form these complex machines" This quote is more obvious ignorance of evolution. How can an organism lose certain essential parts during it's evolutionary timeline? An organism evolved from more primitive organisms, ie a machine that was similar but less complex gave way to modern day PCs. But the traits that require certain organs or features evolved with or after the organs themselves, and with things like eyes, the need for them arose before they were evolved. Early aquatic animals during the Cambrian Explosion were essentially in an arms race. Some animals had already developed photoreceptor proteins sensitive to light, called "eye spots". Here's a link to back up the info and explain in depth of the evolution of the eye; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye But my point here is that the need for the supposed "necessary" parts of an organism today evolved with the organism's need to use them. Obviously before they had eyes, they made due, but if you removed the eyes from a fish, it would die. So all in all, you're again, boasting your ignorance for the evolutionary process of organs.

"Just look at your diagram! That is obviously steps!" Do you know how much information is left out throughout the steps? The diagram is the best I could find, but it actually doesn't represent my argument entirely. It already has bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotic. It leaves out the most important part; the gained immunity. It is simplified, so it's easy for someone who glosses over the information to think it's a step-by-step. If you would have read what I wrote down, you wouldn't even have forwarded this idiocy.

"To answer your question: Because in order to be Atheist, you have to believe in evolution. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I would like to point out that just because the pope believes in evolution DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT! Telling me "Believe in evolution because the pope does" is faulty-appeal to authority. I seriously doubt that the pope has spent his whole life researching evolution. He probably just says that so that he can get smiles from the "scientific" community."
What the f*ck? Honestly? I personally know people who don't believe in any deity and think evolution is bogus. Check out the flat earth society or whatever, who's community contains a lot of atheists & they believe in a flat freaking earth...modern science contradicts the hell out of that.
Also, that wasn't an appeal to authority. It was an example on someone who's largely known as religious & isn't a total ignorant bigot. If it was a fallacious argument, I would be using it as an attempt to convince you that you should join his views or something. That's the intent of the fallacy, to show that some smart dude or authority figure does it, so it must be right. I don't believe in this. Quit presupposing, even though it's a Christian specialty.

"Now you could tell me "Believe in evolution because *Famous Evolutionary Scientist* does" but his opinion still carries very little weight because the Creation v Evolution debate is controversial. In controversial subjects you can't just reach a (good) conclusion without observing the evidence yourself. If you reach a conclusion just because some one you like reaches that conclusion you are not being very scientific. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU ARE DOING THIS CRYPT. I AM JUST SAYING THAT ANY ONE WHO REACHES A CONCLUSION JUST BECAUSE SOME ONE THEY LIKE (maybe a famous Scientist, Parents, Friends, Spouse, etc.) REACHED THAT CONCLUSION DOES NOT REALLY UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC"

No, I don't. Nor have I, nor would I, but reflecting on what points you've thought I had made, I wouldn't be surprised if you took the "no" as a "yes". I honestly wouldn't, that's the type of debater you are.
Well, how about taking a look at some of the evidence rather than your conformation bias pages? I can link you to mountains of significant and observable evidence for evolution. However with your theories that have been peer reviewed and roundly rejected by Christian and non-religious scientists alike, (along with your inability to cope with that & trying to scrounge up some sort of logic in this mess) I would assume that I'd be wasting my time trying to show you that, well..."belief in evolution is optional, participation is not."