Greeting fellow souls

MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Greeting fellow souls

Im not a PHD
Im not a Bible thumping, beat you over the head, religious freak.
Im not an athiest either

But, I am a thinker....
My weapons are TRUTH and LOGIC.
I welcome debates. I love stimulating opposing views. Please, if you answer me and my "voice of reason" try to be intelligent.

Here are my rules for engagement.

I will NOT use BIBLE scripture to make my point unless Im specifically asked
I will NOT use "faith" to try and support a "fact"
I will warn you ahead of time when I share what I "believe"

Please, no stupidity. I need intelligent conversation. I will respond to you intelligently as well.

Let the games begin.....

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Hi VoR! Is there a

Hi VoR!

Is there a particular topic you would like to discuss?


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
EVOLUTION

What’s up Kemono!

Well, if you want, lets talk something I cant stand. EVOLUTION. It has more holes in it than a spaghetti colander. To me its just a blind faith based RELIGION that PhD’s use to explain our existence. Did you see my post on the BIG BANG theory? Case in point. It takes a lot of "faith" to believe in evolution. There is not one shred of FACT or TRUTH in Darwinism. Its a RELIGION, just like Islam. It is full of forgeries, deception and corruption. Government funded grants led to numerous frauds to try to discover the missing link between apes and humans or dinosaurs and birds. None of it was ever proven or even accepted at first. Only loud droning on of how it "must be true" led to the acceptance of evolution. Only just over half the scientific community believes in evolution anyways. So, why is it being taught as FACT in universities around the world? No facts, just fiction, guessing, speculation and make believe. Vague words like 'appeared' 'disappeared' litter the scientific journals. Any good arguments in there. Just show me ONE proof of "macro" evolution. That is the evolving between species and Ill shut up.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline

Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well, if you want,

Quote:
Well, if you want, lets talk something I cant stand. EVOLUTION.

Sure! I don't know very much about the subject and I hope some of the more knowledgeable folks are willing to share their insights with us. That said, what I can do is explain what convinced me as a layman to accept evolution as a good scientific theory.

In my understanding the heart and soul of the theory of evolution is "common descent": that humans, elephants, sunflowers, bacteria, gila monsters -- the lot -- share common ancestry.

Now, the difference between a scientific theory and a religious or pseudoscientific doctrine is that a scientific theory makes empirically falsifiable predictions. (I'm sure you know all of this but I'm saying this stuff explicitly for the benefit of our possible readers.) If the predictions are way off (bad enough to make the theory useless), the theory is either abandoned altogether or modified so that its predictions get more accurate.

So what would a theory of common descent predict? A lot. First of all, it predicts that all species can be organized into a tree of life that can (and does) fork (like a tree) but can never see branches reunite (unlike, say, a river). Without common descent there is no reason to expect such a thing. Languages are a good example of entities that form a tree-like structure because they branch but rarely reunite. Indo-European languages resemble each other more than they resemble any Fenno-Ugric language; Germanic languages resemble each other more than they resemble any Romance language, but Romance and Germanic languages resemble each other more than any of them resemble any Fenno-Ugric language, etc.

Take any collection of things that have properties. You can actually test statistically if they conform to a tree-like structure. Cars and books do not, but languages do. So what about species? Common descent predicts species form a tree-like structure, so if they don't, common descent is in trouble. But if they do, common descent is a pretty bad-ass theory, because without it we have no reason to predict such a thing. Well, it turns out that the distribution of properties in species is extremely treelike. Nice one, common descent!

But of course we can predict much more. If there is one true tree of life, all independent lines of evidence should lead to the same tree. If they do, that is absolutely mind-blowing, because the number of potential trees that species could randomly be organized into is beyond astronomical.

So let's take DNA evidence. Given that DNA contains the building instructions for the phenotype, our best guess without the theory of common descent would be that species with similar qualities have similar DNA. But common descent predicts something quite different: the closer related the species, the more similar the DNA. This means, for example, that fish and whales have very dissimilar DNA but whales and bats have similar DNA while bats and birds have dissimilar DNA. I mean wtf, bats go with whales instead of bats going with birds and whales going with fish? And the thylacine (an animal that looks like a wolf) is genetically closer to the koala (!!) than to the wolf? Are these people crazy or are we talking about the biggest scientific discovery of all time? You guessed it -- common descent got it right.

I'll stop here because the post is getting too long. The predictions I mentioned above are but the tiniest fraction of all predictions generated by the theory (and I'll present more if you'd like), but already we have a case so strong that I don't see any possibility of the theory of common descent ever going away. It's like the shape of the Earth: we can argue about whether it's an oblate spheroid with an equatorial bulge of 42 km or 43 km, but we'll never have a flat Earth again.

Quote:
Only just over half the scientific community believes in evolution anyways.

Really? I didn't realize it was that bad. Damn those social scientists; they wouldn't know a scientific theory if it hit them on the head.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Kemono wrote: Quote:Only

Kemono wrote:

Quote:
Only just over half the scientific community believes in evolution anyways.

Really? I didn't realize it was that bad. Damn those social scientists; they wouldn't know a scientific theory if it hit them on the head.

Like evolution being false, this is a claim he wont be able to prove.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Thank you Sapient

For all that research material. I dont have time to look at all of itright now so I chose one article to debate.

First discussion. "salamanders and songbirds" I agree totally with everything in this article. It proves one thing. Birds make other KINDS of BIRDS and salamanders make other KINDS of Salamanders. When I first saw the title, I was intrigued because I thought a salamander evolved into a bird!! With all that information in the article it proves my argument! This is called "micro" evolution. its the ability for a speicies to adapt to its environment. Do I believe that birds had a common ancestor? Yes, a BIRD!

"What had clearly been a single songbird species now bore all the signs of having evolved into two distinct species."

Yes, two kinds of BIRDS. One didnt become a bat. They are all STILL birds.

Hey, you can make your own breed of dog all by yourself without 6 years of study and a "grant from the National Science Foundation". Just take 2 dogs of different breeds and keep crossbreeding them with other dogs. You could then say in just 30 short years you personally evovled the dog into a new species.

Forgive my sarcasm. Please show me an article that has a bird becoming something other than a bird.

PEACE!

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Mr. Hovind, Voice of Reason

Mr. Hovind,

Voice of Reason wrote:
Please show me an article that has a bird becoming something other than a bird.

Show me you'll actually interpret the data in the article as it was meant to be read, and wont ignore the FIRST link with the 29 evidences of macroevolution.

Also, click "my inbox" on the left hand side of the site in the menu. Please suggest the name change you would like, or one will be made for you, which may cause login problems. You are not permitted to have a misleading name, see board rules.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Kemono wrote: We have a case

Kemono wrote:

We have a case so strong that I don't see any possibility of the theory of common descent ever going away.

I do beleive in common descent among KINDS of animals. Horses and zebras had a common ancestor Im sure. You can even breen horses and zebras! They are a differnt species, but we can crossbreed them. That means they are the same KIND. Ill wager the same is true with all the differnt type of finches as well. BUT, try to breed a horse with a cow. It dosnt work of course. We as humans can only make more humans. Yes we vary. Eskimos have thicker skin, people that live in high altitudes have bigger lungs than the people in the vally, but show me one shred of any animal become somthing other than its kind. Show me a dog that became something other than a dog. Better yet, show me the hundreds of steps it takes for the ancestor of a dog become a modern day dog, or all the fossils of non-horses and zebras becoming horses and zebras. I understand the point you were making in your post, but there are so many gaps in evolution in getting from one kind to another.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Voice of Reason wrote: I do

Voice of Reason wrote:

I do beleive in common descent among KINDS of animals. Horses and zebras had a common ancestor Im sure.

You just contradicted yourself, while admitting evolution occurs! There is no other way that two different animals can share a common ancestor without evolution. Show us evidence of the first horse evolving into a non-horse like a zebra, or vice versa.

Last chance to offer your own screen name change before one is made for you.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
???????

Sapient wrote:
Mr. Hovind,

Show me you'll actually interpret the data in the article as it was meant to be read, and wont ignore the FIRST link with the 29 evidences of macroevolution.

Also, click "my inbox" on the left hand side of the site in the menu. Please suggest the name change you would like, or one will be made for you, which may cause login problems. You are not permitted to have a misleading name, see board rules.

Ok, first off, my name is Mr. Peters, not Hovind. Second, are you serious about my name change? I havent said anything unreasonable. I chose the article which was shorter because I was short on time, but I assure you I will read the FIRST link as soon as I can. I know this is YOUR forum and Im new to it. I thought you could use a little intelligent debate. It seems that you are a bit intimidated. you didnt respond to my previous post, but want me to change my name and hurry up and read through your first article.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Also, click

Sapient wrote:

Also, click "my inbox" on the left hand side of the site in the menu. Please suggest the name change you would like, or one will be made for you, which may cause login problems. You are not permitted to have a misleading name, see board rules.

None of this is working right now. It tells me that Im not permitted to view this page.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
!!!!!!!

Sapient wrote:
Voice of Reason wrote:

I do beleive in common descent among KINDS of animals. Horses and zebras had a common ancestor Im sure.

You just contradicted yourself, while admitting evolution occurs! There is no other way that two different animals can share a common ancestor without evolution. Show us evidence of the first horse evolving into a non-horse like a zebra, or vice versa.

Last chance to offer your own screen name change before one is made for you.

Sapient, ease down man! I said MICRO evolution. Evolution between KINDS not MACRO evolution between differnt KINDS. How about COSMIC, CHEMICAL, GEOLOGICAL, are all forms of evolution. Way to muscle the new guy with yout BADGE of courage! Agian, your links arent working. I cant beleive you are responding to me this way!!

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Voice of Reason

Voice of Reason wrote:

Sapient, ease down man! I said MICRO evolution. Evolution between KINDS not MACRO evolution between differnt KINDS.

Simply put you are exhibiting extreme ignorance on this every step of the way. Define "kind" in the sense that you are using it.

A non-horse is not a horse, I don't care if you want to call it "kind" or anything else, you can not escape the fact that you just admitted evolution ocurrs no matter how much backpeddling you do. You admitted there is a common ancestor that is a different animal tha a zebra and a horse and through evolution created a new animal.

Quote:
Agian, your links arent working.

The rules link should work now. You're inbox should work, but nevermind that.... we don't permit names that are deliberatly misleading for example:

A man can't use the name "sexygirl"
A theist can't use the name "some atheist"
An atheist can't use the name "I love Jesus"
And an irrational ignorant unreasonable person can't use the name "Voice of Reason."

Please choose a new name, or we'll have to pick one for you. When we change your name you will no longer know how to log in.

This is me being nice, so stop whining.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I do beleive in common

Quote:
I do beleive in common descent among KINDS of animals. [...] I understand the point you were making in your post, but there are so many gaps in evolution in getting from one kind to another.

I'm not sure you do (understand, that is). The predictive power of common descent works extremely well between what you call kinds. Unless of course you don't think that things like E. coli and homo sapiens are different kinds.

Quote:
Show me a dog that became something other than a dog.

I can't. The theory of common descent does not predict that we should see dogs become non-dogs. Individuals do not evolve; populations do. What I can do is show you the overwhelming evidence for the hypothesis that all known species from koalas to humans to fruit flies to whales to ferns to bacteria share common ancestry.


Kemono
Posts: 137
Joined: 2006-08-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Like evolution being

Sapient wrote:
Like evolution being false, this is a claim he wont be able to prove.

That is what I thought as well, but as I am a social scientist of sorts myself, I couldn't resist the tongue-in-cheek lament. Laughing out loud


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
so-called "voice of

so-called "voice of reason":

there seems to be a bit of confusion as to the process of disproving something. you can't read one short article on micro-evolution and use it to discredit macro-evolution. you must read the articles on macro-evolution in order to disprove it. there is no other option.

every article on that list deals with parts or the whole of evolution, some deal with micro-evolution, some with macro, some take an overview of evolution, and some examine evolutions observed in certain species, and some even deal with evolution on a chemical or genetic level.

so please, take your time, do some reading, no pressure, no one is rushing you, and when you have a clear idea of the evidence for evolution, come on back and feel free to chat with us about it.
it just doesnt work any other way, k? Smiling
happy day.

Fear is the mindkiller.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Voice of Reason wrote:

Voice of Reason wrote:
Second, are you serious about my name change?

Yes, I'm serious. What would you like your name to be? I'm changing it to MrPeters by midnight est tonight if you don't give me a suitable alternative.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


AntiFaith
AntiFaith's picture
Posts: 197
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Bump.

Bump.


moleboy
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
"To me its just a blind

"To me its just a blind faith based RELIGION that PhD’s use to explain our existence"

I hate this statement, I really do.
Not because I believe in evolution (though I do) and not because I believe that all the stuff we get from scientists is true (I don't), but because it shows a fundamental lack of understanding regarding science. Without understanding the basic concepts and definitions of science, you can't really have this discussion.
Gravity is a theory. We don't actually know how gravity works, not for certain. But the theory explains quite a bit.
If someone finds something that explains more, then that'll become the new theory of gravity.
The same with evolution. So far, the only competing idea is I.D. which is simply not science.

Religion does not ask for proof. Religion can't be tested or disproven. It is, in fact, self-supporting. Every question, every doubt, every hole, can be answered with something logically equivilent to 'because'.
This includes I.D.

Interestingly, evolution is a perfect topic with which to teach kids what 'science' actually means. The theory doesn't explain everything perfectly, and has grown and changed over the century, and its something we really can't see with our own eyes. BUT, it answers questions, makes predictions, and is falsifiable.


moleboy
Posts: 3
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
he actually doesn't need

he actually doesn't need proof. The formulation of the question, the language used, implies a lack of understanding of the statement he thinks he is posing.
Further, while he could certainly call for a critical study of evolution and its flaws as a theory, his decision to refer to it as a 'religion' moves it out of the realm of science and logic in the first place. WIthout logic, with simply (as Mr. Colbert puts it) "truthiness", facts become irrelevant.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Dan Barker once talked about

Dan Barker once talked about this sort of thing - that science is definitely not based on faith. " We don't see scientists holding hands every Sunday morning saying 'you must have faith in gravity, that everything that goes up up up must come down down down.' If they did we would think they were very silly."

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Talking Dog
Talking Dog's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
A well known and used

A well known and used example of evolution is the Ostrich and the Emu. Wile there bodies are almost exactly the same they live a world apart. The Ostrich is larger witch helps it live and defend itself on the plains of Africa. Wile the Emu is a bit smaller and foliage colored to help it survive in the Jungles of South America. This supports continental drift in the fact the fossil record show the ancestor of these birds the Dromornis stirtoni can be found on both contents

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Pascal


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I like that idea that people

I like that idea that people who don't believe in evolution shouldn't take modern antibiotics - only penicillin. Of course they have that ridiculous idea that evolution exists but can't go beyond an artificial "kind" - which can be as large as a "family" for birds or as specific as "species" for humans. Utter nonsense.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Hey, lay-man! Why do you

Hey, lay-man! Why do you suppose that you, with the wave of your hand, can dismiss something that thousands of scientists have spent millions of man-hours researching? Can you do the same for quantum mechanics? What about the germ theory of disease? How about string theory?

Why is it that you single out evolution among these, and pretend that it is any different from the other oh-so-difficult areas of scientific studies? Stop being so goddamn arrogant. You are neither smart, nor informed enough to overrule the ideas of the greatest minds in biology of the last century and a half just because your pastor (who, no doubt, holds a degree in theology or something useless like that) said so.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


DrFear
Posts: 248
Joined: 2006-07-09
User is offlineOffline
*whispers* shhhh, i think

*whispers* shhhh, i think he's reading.....uh....hope he's reading?
bah, who am i kidding, anybody think he's actually reading?
see, that's the joke, because him reading would involve him admitting he's wrong. and we all know he's too "reasonable" (by his definition) to admit wrongness. get it?

Fear is the mindkiller.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
I do not post because I

I do not post because I think I will change someone's mind; I post solely to increase my post count.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
DrFear wrote: and we all

DrFear wrote:
and we all know he's too "reasonable"

Well now we wont have the confusion, he is now "MrPeters."

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
MrPeters wrote:For all that

MrPeters wrote:
For all that research material. I dont have time to look at all of itright now so I chose one article to debate.

First discussion. "salamanders and songbirds" I agree totally with everything in this article. It proves one thing. Birds make other KINDS of BIRDS and salamanders make other KINDS of Salamanders. When I first saw the title, I was intrigued because I thought a salamander evolved into a bird!! With all that information in the article it proves my argument! This is called "micro" evolution. its the ability for a speicies to adapt to its environment. Do I believe that birds had a common ancestor? Yes, a BIRD!

"What had clearly been a single songbird species now bore all the signs of having evolved into two distinct species."

Yes, two kinds of BIRDS. One didnt become a bat. They are all STILL birds.

Hey, you can make your own breed of dog all by yourself without 6 years of study and a "grant from the National Science Foundation". Just take 2 dogs of different breeds and keep crossbreeding them with other dogs. You could then say in just 30 short years you personally evovled the dog into a new species.

Forgive my sarcasm. Please show me an article that has a bird becoming something other than a bird.

PEACE!

You CLEARLY do not understand what evolution is. A dog does not suddenly give birth to a pine cone, no matter how much crack pots like Kent Hovind insist bilolgists say they do.

You are demanding evidence no biolgists contends exists. One species does not suddenly become another, it is a slow process and the article you just took exception too is clear evidence of this process in action.

It is a phenomena called ringed speciation. The songbirds on either end of the ring do not intermate, they are seperate species, with intermiediates in between. What more evidcence do you need of the fundamental process?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
MrPeters wrote:Sapient

MrPeters wrote:
Sapient wrote:
Voice of Reason wrote:

I do beleive in common descent among KINDS of animals. Horses and zebras had a common ancestor Im sure.

You just contradicted yourself, while admitting evolution occurs! There is no other way that two different animals can share a common ancestor without evolution. Show us evidence of the first horse evolving into a non-horse like a zebra, or vice versa.

Last chance to offer your own screen name change before one is made for you.

Sapient, ease down man! I said MICRO evolution. Evolution between KINDS not MACRO evolution between differnt KINDS. How about COSMIC, CHEMICAL, GEOLOGICAL, are all forms of evolution. Way to muscle the new guy with yout BADGE of courage! Agian, your links arent working. I cant beleive you are responding to me this way!!

Oh, so you believe in "micro" evolution. Please explain the mechanistic differences between micro and macro evolution and the specific mechanism that prevents so called micro evolution proceeding to speciation.

Then explain to me why you cannot walk a thousand miles one step at a time.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Simply put

Sapient wrote:

Simply put you are exhibiting extreme ignorance on this every step of the way. Define "kind" in the sense that you are using it.

Oh, Sapient...Im SOOOO sorry. Let me put it a different way. A doggie is differnt from a kitty. They are differnt kinds of animals. A horsey and a moo moo cow are not the same kind of animal. See....a horsey will always be a horsey. It will never become somthing differnt. It will always be a horsey. It may get smaller or bigger. It may have more hair or less hair. It may even eat differnt sutff depending on where it lives. But it will never change into something else other than a horse. Do you understand now? If not its ok. Its a tuff subject to grasp.

Sapient wrote:
A non-horse is not a horse, I don't care if you want to call it "kind" or anything else, you can not escape the fact that you just admitted evolution ocurrs no matter how much backpeddling you do. You admitted there is a common ancestor that is a different animal tha a zebra and a horse and through evolution created a new animal.

Wow...how profound. A non-horse is not a horse. Help me out oh great brain. Where do you think a horse came from? You think it came from a non-horse. We humans came from non-humans. Thats what you think. A zebra and a horse are in the same family!! Did you KNOW that? They are lumped together in the horse family. BREEDING can make a hybrid of a zebra and a horse called a "zorse". That means they are the same KIND of animal. Evolution as you believe it to be, had nothing to do with it. Did you also know that a wolf and a dog are in the same family? They can mate and have offspring. But a zebra and a wolf cannot. Because they are differnt kinds of animals. Have you ever screwed a baboon? Do you think you would have little sapient/baboon babies? NO! You are differnt KINDS. You are human and it is a baboon.

Sapient wrote:
And an irrational ignorant unreasonable person can't use the name "Voice of Reason."

You are an arrogant jerk with this statement. You post up a page of links that would take me days to go through instead of posting an arguement. You are like a talk radio host who hides behind the mute button whenever a guest starts making a good point. You changed my name because you are intimidated by me. You are a mind numbed ROBOT who has been taught over the years WHAT to think and not HOW to think.

Sapient wrote:
This is me being nice, so stop whining.

Oh thank you! I should be so lucky.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MrPeters wrote: Wow...how

MrPeters wrote:

Wow...how profound. A non-horse is not a horse. Help me out oh great brain. Where do you think a horse came from? You think it came from a non-horse.

That was your argument. A horse and a zebra derived from a common ancestor. Logical deduction would tell us that you were referring to the non horse that evolved into the horse and zebra over time.

Sapient wrote:
You post up a page of links that would take me days to go through instead of posting an arguement.

You asked for evidences of what you call "macroevolution" I provided tons of them, you have yet to refute any of it, you have some gall to insinuate I'd use a "mute" button, when in fact that is exactly what you've done. Stop projecting.

Quote:
You are like a talk radio host who hides behind the mute button whenever a guest starts making a good point.

I am a radio show host, and yet I've NEVER used a mute button on the many theist guests.

Quote:
You changed my name because you are intimidated by me.

No, I changed your name because it was dishonest and misleading, and I wouldn't want anyone to accidently think you are a representative of the Rational Response Squad.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Like

Sapient wrote:

Like evolution being false, this is a claim he wont be able to prove.

Check this out. The scientific communtiy doesnt really offer percentages for me. I did find these articles though.

Gallup Pole:

A narrow majority of the public (54% in a recent Pew poll) believes that scientists are generally in agreement about evolution. But fewer believe there is strong scientific evidence in support of evolution. A December 2004 Newsweek survey found just 45% saying evolution was both widely accepted in the scientific community and well supported by evidence, and the same number in a 2005 Harris Interactive survey agreed that "Darwin's theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries" (48% disagree). A 2004 Gallup poll registered even fewer (35%) saying Darwin's theory of evolution has been "well-supported by evidence." This question also offered respondents the choice of saying they don't know enough about the issue, an option that 30% selected. -people-press.org

Did Humans Evolve? Not Us, Say Americans

Article Tools Sponsored By
Published: August 15, 2006

In surveys conducted in 2005, people in the United States and 32 European countries were asked whether to respond ''true,'' ''false'' or ''not sure'' to this statement: ''Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.'' The same question was posed to Japanese adults in 2001.

The United States had the second-highest percentage of adults who said the statement was false and the second-lowest percentage who said the statement was true, researchers reported in the current issue of Science.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Out of NOTHING came a dot

Out of NOTHING came a dot that "expanded" and made everything in the universe.

About 4.6 billion years ago, our planet formed and cooled. It slowly started to "rain" for millions of years making the oceans.

The rocks that formed over millions of years, contained just the right accidental amount of elements to mix with that and other materials that slowly evolved on thier own over millions of years to make life.

Then over millions more years that "life" began to eveolve into every speicies of creatures on this planet.

Single cells slowly became more complex (on thier own!) and then grew gills and breathed the water.

Slowly, the gills became lungs. The fins became legs. All on thier own.

Thus populating the planet and eventually making humans.

Humans great ancestor was a rock.

Out of nothing came a rock which brought forth humans over billions of years.

WHAT LOGIC!!!

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Check this out. The

Quote:
Check this out. The scientific communtiy doesnt really offer percentages for me. I did find these articles though.

Gallup Pole:

A narrow majority of the public (54% in a recent Pew poll) believes that scientists are generally in agreement about evolution. But fewer believe there is strong scientific evidence in support of evolution. A December 2004 Newsweek survey found just 45% saying evolution was both widely accepted in the scientific community and well supported by evidence, and the same number in a 2005 Harris Interactive survey agreed that "Darwin's theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries" (48% disagree). A 2004 Gallup poll registered even fewer (35%) saying Darwin's theory of evolution has been "well-supported by evidence." This question also offered respondents the choice of saying they don't know enough about the issue, an option that 30% selected. -people-press.org

This poll has nothing to do with the actual beliefs of scientists which is what you proposed. Look at how poor your comprehension skills are, and then correlate this to your understanding of evolution.

The poll speaks only about what people think scientists believe, not what scientists believe. By posting this poll you've only enforced the need for us to speak out against this despicable denial of the facts that the anti-evolution crowd espouses, as the majority of Americans are morons when it comes to the topic of evolution. It's sad the type of stupidity religion breeds.

Here's another poll.... The chart shows who "accepts" evolution as true (source):

Shizzle, sorry you had a post deleted, it got removed by accident when removing Peters double post.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MrPeters wrote: Out of

MrPeters wrote:

Out of NOTHING came a dot that "expanded" and made everything in the universe.

Who said "out of nothing?" What is the source?

Quote:
Humans great ancestor was a rock.

No this is not the scientific explanation of abiogenesis. Rocks are lifeless, they're not in our "kind" bwahahaha!

IRONICALLY.... the story of the bible is that humans great ancestor is dirt!

Are you projecting the inadequacies of Christianity onto atheists again? tsk-tsk

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I'm reposting: I said

Ok, I'm reposting:

I said that poll only shows how ignorant most Americans are, especially when it comes to science.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:. Who said

Sapient wrote:
.
Who said "out of nothing?" What is the source?

The best, non-mathematical description that any cosmologist can create for describing the Big Bang is that it occurred in every cubic centimeter of space in the universe with no unique starting point. In fact, it was an event which our mathematics indicate, actually brought space and time into existence. It did not occur IN space at a particular location, because it created space ( and time itself) as it went along. There may have existed some state 'prior' to the Big Bang, but it is a state not described by its location in time or space. This state preceded the existence of our time and space.-astronomycafe.net

If it created time and space, then there was NOTHING before that, at least in what humans dertermine as something. This statement sure takes alot of FAITH to beleive. Eh, lets just take thier word for it because we are so "dumb" compared to these "scientist"

Quote:

IRONICALLY.... the story of the bible is that humans great ancestor is dirt!

With what did God create the first human body? The Scriptures say that the Lord formed it from the dust of the ground. In the modern age in which we live, we know that the dust of the earth is composed of about twenty chemicals. Scientists tell us that all twenty of those chemical substances are found in the human body. In the human body, there are more than seventy trillion parts we call cells. And all those parts are woven together and designed to function in perfect harmony. The human body is a miracle!-injil.org

70 trillion cells. I guess evolution got increadibly lucky

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MrPeters wrote:Sapient

MrPeters wrote:
Sapient wrote:
.
Who said "out of nothing?" What is the source?

The best, non-mathematical description that any cosmologist can create for describing the Big Bang is that it occurred in every cubic centimeter of space in the universe with no unique starting point. In fact, it was an event which our mathematics indicate, actually brought space and time into existence. It did not occur IN space at a particular location, because it created space ( and time itself) as it went along. There may have existed some state 'prior' to the Big Bang, but it is a state not described by its location in time or space. This state preceded the existence of our time and space.-astronomycafe.net

Please link the specific page (and start doing this regularly), I want to read it in context, and see who wrote it.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, you know me, smoke and

Yeah, you know me, smoke and mirrors. I just make stuff up as I go.


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
http://www.big-bang-theory.co

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Here ya go. First paragraph.

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.-big-bang-theory.com

Bible. In the beginning God....
Science. In the beginning NOTHING....

BOTH are statements of FAITH.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
OH I LOVE

OH I LOVE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. -big-bang-theory.com

WE DONT KNOW!!

In the words of George Micheals

You gotta have FAITH a FAITH a FAITH a FAITH

My point is, if you dont know, dont just assume and pass it off as FACT.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It certainly isn't anywhere

It certainly isn't anywhere near as ridiculous as the idea of an infinite god in the middle of an infinite nothing, doing nothing and thinking of nothing (there would have been nothing to think about!) until the time he decided to create the universe.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MrPeters

MrPeters wrote:
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Here ya go. First paragraph.

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.-big-bang-theory.com

Ok, first of all this isn't my strong suit, I'll leave the main hauling to Yellow #5, however a few things caught my attention with this one.

First of all, you left out a portion of that specific page which states:
"First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning."

Furthermore, the link for the article when you're done reading is written with a God exists slant, using awfully shitty logic to make it's claims: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm

Lastly, Yellow doesn't think one of the current big bang theories is the best, however it flies in the face of what you'd like to represent. A potential view of the Universe as it stands is that we are in a never ending series of expansions and contractions and that before the big bang there may have ended a previous contraction, which was the result of a previous big bang, a never ending infinite cycle.

Furthemore like I said I'll wait for Mike (Yellow) to weigh in, but I think you are misrepesenting the way science refers to a "beginning." When scientists refer to the beginning of our Universe, they can show OUR Universe had a "beginning" at the big bang, however they don't pretend to explain what happened before that. Asserting "God did it" is mere stupidity.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bang.html
"Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10-43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang."

Notice he doesn't claim to explain what happened before that moment?

Quote:
Bible. In the beginning God....
Science. In the beginning NOTHING....

BOTH are statements of FAITH.

Not if Science can prove there was nothing (I'm not saying it has). However like I said, I think you are severely misrepresenting scientific theories when you try to claim that science claims there was "NOTHING" before the big bang. I'm not surprised, you seem to be doing a great job of misrepresenting reality every step of the way.

Mike?

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MrPeters wrote: My point is,

MrPeters wrote:

My point is, if you dont know, dont just assume and pass it off as FACT.

And where did they report to pass off as fact where the "singularity" came from?

A: They didn't.

Furthermore you're using a site about science which appears to be created by theists with an agenda. You're making your arguments look weak.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Oh, so you believe in "micro" evolution. Please explain the mechanistic differences between micro and macro evolution and the specific mechanism that prevents so called micro evolution proceeding to speciation.

Then explain to me why you cannot walk a thousand miles one step at a time.

Here is the name game that you guys so love to refer to. Its only called micro evolution because scientist call it that. It should be referred to "adaptation". the ability to adapt to its environment. If a dog keeps jumping off a cliff its not going to grow feathers and fly after a million years. There are genetic limitations to adaptation or micro evolution as they so call it. The genetic code prohibits differnt KINDS of animals to interbreed.

So tell me, what is to evolve next? Has Mankind reached its limits? To me, if we could fly, we could take one step and go a thousand miles at a time. Why dont we have wings? Hasnt evolution figured out that we need them? We wouldnt need any mode of transportation if we had wings. How about photosythasis? We should be able to create our own food within our bodies using the sun. That would be way more effecient. How come we havent evovled at all in 8,000 years of recorded human history? OH THATS RIGHT! We need MILLIONS of years. DARN! I want to fly NOW!!

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Then explain to me why you cannot walk a thousand miles one step at a time.

Feel free to actually answer this one at any point.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient

Sapient wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Then explain to me why you cannot walk a thousand miles one step at a time.

Feel free to actually answer this one at any point.

This is not a relevant point to our argurment. Traveling distances can be physically done and we can prove that. Taking one step and going a thousand miles with our legs is impossible. Evolution has NOT been proven. Apples and Oranges man.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Furthermore

Sapient wrote:
Furthermore you're using a site about science which appears to be created by theists with an agenda. You're making your arguments look weak.

I dont see anywhere on that site where they say they are theistic.

Plus, I could reverse the argument and say that you are using sites that appear to have an athiestic view.

This does not appear to be a good argument from you. You asked me for a link, I gave you one. It wasnt good enough because it didnt say what you wanted it to.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


MrPeters
Theist
MrPeters's picture
Posts: 35
Joined: 2006-10-03
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:It

MattShizzle wrote:
It certainly isn't anywhere near as ridiculous as the idea of an infinite god in the middle of an infinite nothing, doing nothing and thinking of nothing (there would have been nothing to think about!) until the time he decided to create the universe.

That is your OPINION and you are entitled to it. My point is, a statement of FAITH is a statement of FAITH and you have to have FAITH to beleive either statement.

Logic, Reason, TRUTH


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
MrPeters wrote: Taking one

MrPeters wrote:
Taking one step and going a thousand miles with our legs is impossible.

Evolution doesn't claim to jump 1000 miles in one step, it does it one step at a time.

Quote:
Evolution has NOT been proven.

Of course you've already admitted micro evolution occurrs. Not understanding that "macro evolution" is just an extension of thousands of "micro" changes is not my problem, it's yours.

Evolution is a fact and has been proven.

Still waiting on you to actually prove your claims by refuting the links I posted in my first post of this thread.

So, seriously let's get the skinny, because I just LOOOOOVEE how you said you're not an atheist in your first post, as if you weren't anything other than a fundy Christian. What exactly is your position at ECCC Church? Considering your proximity to Kent Hovind, are you affiliated with him, or simply a fan of his dishonest works (your posts wreak of his stupidity)? Have you been to dino world? Have you heard any updates on Hovinds prison sentence? (those last two questions were just for fun)

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.