|
15 questions for the evolutionists of AH.com
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-09-22 02:13:08
Go home Bart, you're drunk.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-09-22 02:13:17
finally some shreds of reasoning, but damn were they shallow or what
I read pretty quickly and I haven't finished reading the link Hoshiku posted along with the source material. It's pretty obvious you don't want answers to your questions.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-09-22 02:16:27
Asura.Refreshazure said: »but you've literally stepped into a liberal holy land. not really, I can only think of like 1-2 liberals on the whole site.
You are so full of crap.
Also, I want names.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-09-22 02:17:32
Asura.Refreshazure said: »but you've literally stepped into a liberal holy land. not really, I can only think of like 1-2 liberals on the whole site.
You are so full of crap.
Also, I want names. Not at all, and I'm sorry, but it should be rather easy to discern, are you really that blind with your bias?
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-09-22 02:18:56
Asura.Refreshazure said: »but you've literally stepped into a liberal holy land. not really, I can only think of like 1-2 liberals on the whole site.
You are so full of crap.
Also, I want names. Not at all, and I'm sorry, but it should be rather easy to discern, are you really that blind with your bias?
You call me biased, but I bet you can name 30 "neocons" and only 1-2 liberals? Puh-lease.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-22 02:20:13
Asura.Refreshazure said: »but you've literally stepped into a liberal holy land. not really, I can only think of like 1-2 liberals on the whole site.
You are so full of crap.
Also, I want names. Not at all, and I'm sorry, but it should be rather easy to discern, are you really that blind with your bias?
You call me biased, but I bet you can name 30 "neocons" and only 1-2 liberals? Puh-lease.
Off the top of my head: only about the same, most are in general centrists.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-09-22 02:22:52
Asura.Refreshazure said: »but you've literally stepped into a liberal holy land. not really, I can only think of like 1-2 liberals on the whole site.
You are so full of crap.
Also, I want names. Not at all, and I'm sorry, but it should be rather easy to discern, are you really that blind with your bias?
You call me biased, but I bet you can name 30 "neocons" and only 1-2 liberals? Puh-lease.
Off the top of my head: only about the same, most are in general centrists.
You are so afraid of the word "liberal" that it's pathetic. 23% of Americans self-identify as liberals, but in a forum of people who largely argue from the left you can only find 1-2 that fit your definition? Take off the blinders, man.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-22 02:22:58
But RT: we were made in his image!
By Jetackuu 2014-09-22 02:23:44
Asura.Refreshazure said: »but you've literally stepped into a liberal holy land. not really, I can only think of like 1-2 liberals on the whole site.
You are so full of crap.
Also, I want names. Not at all, and I'm sorry, but it should be rather easy to discern, are you really that blind with your bias?
You call me biased, but I bet you can name 30 "neocons" and only 1-2 liberals? Puh-lease.
Off the top of my head: only about the same, most are in general centrists. You are so afraid of the word "liberal" that it's pathetic. 23% of people self-identify as liberals, but in a forum of people who largely argue from the left you can only find 1-2 that fit your definition? Take off the blinders, man.
Pulling numbers out of your ***, got it.
Here's where your blinders are on, in the bold.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-09-22 02:25:12
Asura.Refreshazure said: »but you've literally stepped into a liberal holy land. not really, I can only think of like 1-2 liberals on the whole site.
You are so full of crap.
Also, I want names. Not at all, and I'm sorry, but it should be rather easy to discern, are you really that blind with your bias?
You call me biased, but I bet you can name 30 "neocons" and only 1-2 liberals? Puh-lease.
Off the top of my head: only about the same, most are in general centrists. You are so afraid of the word "liberal" that it's pathetic. 23% of people self-identify as liberals, but in a forum of people who largely argue from the left you can only find 1-2 that fit your definition? Take off the blinders, man.
Pulling numbers out of your ***, got it.
Here's where your blinders are on, in the bold.
Sourced from Gallup. It's not perfect, but it's better than the never-cited sources you pull out your rear end on a regular basis.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-09-22 02:26:20
I'll clarify for you: what you consider "from the left" and what actually is left leaning are two different things in their entirety.
I pull directly from common knowledge, it's like asking somebody to cite that Halloween is on October 31st...
Polls are stupid, and you should feel bad for reading them, not to mention trying to justify your bias by using it as an example when it's not even a good sample to base this site on.
But continue with the shades on man, continue.
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-09-22 02:28:36
I'll clarify for you: what you consider "from the left" and what actually is left leaning are two different things in their entirety.
I pull directly from common knowledge, it's like asking somebody to cite that Halloween is on October 31st...
Polls are stupid, and you should feel bad for reading them, not to mention trying to justify your bias by using it as an example when it's not even a good sample to base this site on.
But continue with the shades on man, continue.
"Common knowledge" = "Anything you think is true", apparently.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-09-22 02:31:30
More with the blinders, as expected.
Cerberus.Tikal
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4945
By Cerberus.Tikal 2014-09-22 02:40:28
Name the two liberals Jet. I can name at least 5 off the top of my head.
Also, big *** L.O.L. at this thread. This is a special breed of herp derp.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-22 02:45:53
Name the two liberals Jet. I can name at least 5 off the top of my head. Pleebs and Bacon, there's a couple of others that I would classify as such if I weren't so sure that they're just trolling hardcore.
You have to remember though, that I'm not great with names, and there's only about 10-20 users I keep in memory at a time.
Also wasn't trying to oust anyone who doesn't often post in P&R, cuz there's a name or two I'd add there as well.
On the other note one of the conservatives that I would say is more moderate is GoG, we've lost some of the most hardcore ones though over time.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-22 02:46:18
Name the two liberals Jet. I can name at least 5 off the top of my head.
Also, big *** L.O.L. at this thread. This is a special breed of herp derp.
I'll sent you what my thoughts of it were, hold up.
Siren.Sieha
Server: Siren
Game: FFXI
Posts: 503
By Siren.Sieha 2014-09-22 03:06:57
so either this was a great troll or someone is butthurt that people believe in evolution.
evolution exists with or without God. It neither disproves or proves the existence. Using anything in this world to prove God exists or to cause people to believe in Him is not the right way and it wont work.
If you could prove the existence of God then people wouldnt need faith.
I like how people take ridiculous religious blog writings and think they are great tools to use in the fight against the non-believers. Go home 'kool' jack you're drunk.
[+]
Asura.Ccl
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1995
By Asura.Ccl 2014-09-22 03:59:42
Asura.Refreshazure said: »hay Kooljack What you think of the fact that we have combined Edited human sperm with edited animal eggs multiple times and have had them grow but we never implanted them because of ethical Laws ( and we can't have a race of furry"s running around)
but in theory we could create hybrid human life if people were not so afraid to go into the darkness of the abyss of science and play "God" for the lack of a better word.
Well to Stand correctly we already genetically engineered animals with human lungs and skin, we've just never tried for a full on crossbreed in a human womb.
would that Be a part of God's plan? Eventually one day a scientist will ignore the laws and cross that threshold. is only a matter of time human curiosity you know.
Does it scare you that one day scientist will eventually play " God" and create a whole new form of human life?
of course we still no idea what's going on behind closed doors I wouldn't be surprised if the experiment has proceeded further than public knowledge.
I'm just posting this stuff for you guys to read I skeptic that he even understands what I'm saying or the consequences of it.
Working as a cells culture, unless we find something huge; it won't happen during our lifetime; first we'll need to master cells treatment (like replacing a broken liver/kidney with one made of stem cells in vitro) but we can't atm and as soon as someone master it, it will be released cause it will make ***ton of profit lol
Bismarck.Enzoe
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
By Bismarck.Enzoe 2014-09-22 04:09:07
Ugh so much “gothca” using out of context garble from all over the place in a text wall of bleh.
I’ll just give you the answers that you want to here as best as I can.
1.) How did life originate?
God
2.) How did the DNA code originate?
God
3.) How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes…
God
4.) Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
“as if” is your subjection, something super religious folk do not know how to suspend. What a minute! God is the answer!
5.) How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
God
6.) Living things look like they were designed.
Another subjection here. Anyways. Here you go. God!
7.) How did multi-cellular life originate?
Gawd
8.) How did sex originate?
Cuz God is a perv I guess!
9.) Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
God is erosion! God!
10.) How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years,
God loves turtles!
11.) How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?
Another wild subjection here with the “nihilism is taught in science class”. Science is a matter of verifiable evidence. Religion stuff is not verifiable. Get it already.
12.) Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated?
Wild subjection extravaganza. What a second… God!
13.) Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
Evolution is not a scientist.
14.) Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate.
Science involves objective information and verifiable evidence. It is possible to be both religious and a scientist because they are two different things that are observed two different ways. Religion is a practice of faith and science is a matter of verified information. One does not discount the other, just stupid idiots do that crap.
15.) Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
Have you been to science class ever. Where you really really high? Anyways. God!
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4307
By Asura.Ackeronll 2014-09-22 04:14:30
Am I seeing things or did the thread, that was horribly stupid from yesterday, change its name and lose like 6 pages?
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-09-22 04:18:06
Asura.Refreshazure said: »so either this was a great troll or someone is butthurt that people believe in evolution.
evolution exists with or without God. It neither disproves or proves the existence. Using anything in this world to prove God exists or to cause people to believe in Him is not the right way and it wont work.
If you could prove the existence of God then people wouldnt need faith.
I like how people take ridiculous religious blog writings and think they are great tools to use in the fight against the non-believers. Go home 'kool' jack you're drunk.
Actually evolution and can be use as a fact that the Christian deity is such a freak bad designer can be a very strong argument( one of many) against the Christian deity.
why did he make humans with such bad design. he's a all-knowing deity of the universe yet he creates a creature in his own image that with decaying cells easy to destroy internal organs a very messed up skeletal system no wings horrible eyesight we eat the same spot we take in air we also released waste near our sexual organs which can cause all sorts of infections.
most humans are not even intelligent enough to know what I'm implying reached a higher level of cognitive thought in order to think about it That is also bed design.
and I'm not insulting them I'm just asking them to think.
blind watchmaker http://uath.org/download/literature/Richard.Dawkins.The.Blind.Watchmaker.pdf
going to relink the rational wiki just in case some of you are coming even close to thinking like Kooljack.
Here are the answers to his 15 insane questions.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Question_Evolution
edit: I think Kooljack left thinking he stumped us with his creationist ministries list. . he probably relieving himself of future possible people existences.
it not any fun if they immediately run away
You're kind of going the opposite route here, as in you're trying too hard to disprove the existence of a god with faulty reasoning and straw man arguments. There aren't any religious people out there trying to argue that humans were made without flaw. I can build a model aircraft out of toothpicks in the image of the original. Would you chastise me because it's not able to fly? I'm not justifying Kooljack's arguments, but yours aren't much better.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-09-22 04:24:03
If you were an omnipotent being, then yes I would question why you couldn't create a fully-functioning model.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13622
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-09-22 04:27:12
If you were an omnipotent being, yes, I would question why you couldn't create a fully-functioning model.
Because creating a fully-functional model isn't the point. Unfortunately, practically almost all mainstream religions do a really bad job of explaining why we need to go through a state of imperfection and mortality to begin with, so I can't blame people for not understanding.
1.) How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
2.) How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?
3.) How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?
4.) Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?
5.) How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? (This video simply explains the concept of a short biochemical pathway.) Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3
6.) Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?
7.) How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?
8.) How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).
9.) Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.
10.) How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7
11.) How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?
12.) Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8
13.) Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?
14.) Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12
15.) Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?
|
|