frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





What evolved in what order?

2»



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Sand ; Nothing has evolved via abiogenesis, descent w/modification or macroevolution...these are lies from the Devil. All life is created by our Creator, Jesus Christ-Yeshua, and everything that has been made, visible and invisible, has been formed by our Lord in perfection...it is man's disobedience that initiated genomic mutational malformations...but evolution is lie for the atheist, the naturalist, the moral relativist seeking to justify their sin by denying that which they intuitively exist and has authority over their life i.e. our Creator, Jesus Christ.


  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    >>>In court witness testimony is the least credible kind of evidence. If there is a single disproving piece of evidence, all the witness testimony will likely be ignored.

    Depends if the disproving piece of evidence is associated with the testimony
    Then you have to do this 200 times.


    >>>Yes science tests for these things, but it is all about the probability of that thing happening. For simplicity, let's say the psychic claim is that they can always make a coin always land on heads. If the coin is flipped 100 times and it always landed on heads, that would be a 1 in 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 odds. If on the 101 flip it lands on tails then we know that the claim is false because the claim is that the psychic can always make a coin land on heads. We don't change the data, we change the claim. We would then say that the psychic can usually make the coin land on heads, and then try to isolate other effecting factors.

    Nevertheless, there are some people here that would still take that person to vegas.


    >>>Feelings have no say on objective reality, as much as we feel that is true. Consider people raised in other religions. They feel that their god beliefs are the correct ones, they have their own scholars who say it is all correct and consistent, and they have their own creation stories. Obviously they can't all be true. So how would we know which was the correct one if the historical method reveals that they are all accurate?

    Of those 1000s of creation stories other than the Bible, does any of them have 200 references?
    Regardless of their own scholars. You show me the creation story and the 200 people that said what they saw was true.
    I'm pretty sure there is no creation story out there other than the Bible that has that level of accreditation.


    >>>I actually have read the bible and that is why I am an atheist. There are too many things in the bible that sound exactly like a fairy tale. I can respect the people who take the bible to be a metaphysical truth, that is stories that teach values and lessons about how to live a good life, but I can't respect those that claim it is literally true because that would mean I have to expect things like a donkey could start talking at any time, demons, witches, and dragons are real, and the the world is only a few thousand years old. These claims are both extraordinary and unsubstantiated.

    If you read the Bible then you know there are no dragons in there it states it is a vision with symbolism.
    There are only witches in name only, because they were called witches at the time. (Let me ask you, are you saying witches were not real?)
    There are people who claim to be root doctors, fortune tellers, palm readers, etc.

    I can appreciate your viewpoint about demons and the talking donkey.
    Nevertheless, nothing in the Bible says the Earth is a few thousand years old.
    It says man has been on Earth for a few thousand years old.
    But the Earth is millions of years old, as the creative days could be hundreds of millions of years.

    Nevertheless, add these names to the list of extraordinary and unsubstantiated.
    Neanderthal man
    95% of missing Bones
    :-)

    >>>Science is not about knowing everything, science is about admitting you don't know something and then systematically finding the answer. Religion is about the opposite. Religion is about supposing you know an answer you really have no idea about, and then asserting it is true even in the face of conflicting evidence.

    Maybe on paper science is supposed to be that way.
    But all Science is about making a claim and then trying to prove it.
    That is the reason why we are discussing evolution now. Because science claims we evolved from Apes, this has not been proven.
    There is all kind of excuses scientists give for why they could not provide proof for their claim.
    Their strongest proof is to attack the Bible, to make the Bible so untrustworthy that people will work hard to try to prove their claim.
    That is why you are asserting there are other creative stories, to make the Bible seem like a book of fiction.
    Instead of focusing on your claim, trying to prove the claim.

    But if science was more like you say I would love to support an idea like that.

    Most religious people don't suppose anything. They read a book and try their best to follow it. In the book, things are supposed.
    You are referring to what some members of the Religion do.


    >>>When I say a cause I don't mean a purpose. I mean x happened, this CAUSED Y Which CAUSED Z.

    I mean the same thing.

    >>>I think we agree on this, I just take it to the next logical step and suppose that at some point there was an original event, or the universe has always existed, or causes itself. Something like this has to be true.

    Two minds

    >>>It kind of seems like you are trying to find some way for a god to be plausible, and while I do think it is possible that something like this happened, for example, simulation theory proposes that this is likely and most life forms are sims. This, however, is very different from what is proposed by the bible, and it doesn't solve the crux of the problem. If we were indeed in a simulation, then there is a world external to ours that may have its own world external to it, and so on. We then run into the same logical issue as before.

    I agree, we do, but we need to find the first step.

    >>>I think it is much more likely that man-made god and not the other way around. There are so many choices that can't all be true, so this means that at least most of them are invented. I just take this a step further and say they are all invented.

    Interesting.

    >>>You should keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out. Sometimes people will try to convince you the earth is flat or alternative medicine works.

    Good point

    You

  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Sand ; You will believe what the Holy Spirit has said in God's word, the Bible and find life in the Name of Jesus Christ as Lord - or - you'll believe the foolishness of men who seek to justify their sins via lies and die in Hell along with them.


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    "Nevertheless, there are some people here that would still take that person to vegas."

    Ok, I'll admit that I would, but it is more likely there is some other trick here, like say the psychic is just hiding a two headed coin in his off hand, then switching them out after the flip.

    "Regardless of their own scholars. You show me the creation story and the 200 people that said what they saw was true.
    I'm pretty sure there is no creation story out there other than the Bible that has that level of accreditation."

    "Of those 1000s of creation stories other than the Bible, does any of them have 200 references?"

    The kind of skirts the question of conviction. Even within the Christian faiths, there is disagreement between what is right and wrong, and how things should be interpreted.

    "Regardless of their own scholars. You show me the creation story and the 200 people that said what they saw was true."

    I'm no theologian, and maybe there are none. What I do know is that there are way more than 200 scientists that advocate that evolution is the origin of the species, and use the big bang as an assumption for building models of the universe.

    "If you read the Bible then you know there are no dragons in there it states it is a vision with symbolism."

    Yes, there are dragons in the bible, although it depends which translation you use. There are some stories that were rejected during the council of Nicea. This includes one where baby Jesus tames a bunch of dragons.
    https://www.cracked.com/article_18948_5-real-deleted-bible-scenes-in-which-jesus-kicks-some-.html

    If you ever visit the arc encounter, the park that advocates for the creation story run by answers in genesis, you will note it is full of dinosaurs. Many religious institutions denote that "dragons" and "dinosaurs" are one and the same.

    "Let me ask you, are you saying witches were not real?"

    Yes? I thought this was common knowledge that witches and witchcraft are not real, and all those killed for it died for nothing.

    "Nevertheless, nothing in the Bible says the Earth is a few thousand years old.
    It says man has been on Earth for a few thousand years old.
    But the Earth is millions of years old, as the creative days could be hundreds of millions of years."

    So the idea of having "creative days" or "god time" or whatever we want to call it is incompatible with a literal interpretation of the bible. This also raises all sorts of questions like how plants survived for millions of years before the sun existed, or how the earth even existed before the sun did. Based on our current models of solar system formation this doesn't jive.

    "That is why you are asserting there are other creative stories, to make the Bible seem like a book of fiction.
    Instead of focusing on your claim, trying to prove the claim."

    If you don't believe that god created the world in 7 days to mean 7 days, then you think it is fiction. If we are going to be liberal about what a day is, why not be liberal about everything else?

    The evidence for evolution and a universe that came from a point via cosmic expansion is very strong. We can prove that the universe is expanding right now, and we can prove that organisms genetic information can change over time and extrapolate that change to suppose that organisms evolve.

    The creation idea doesn't necessarily have to be tied to the bible. If we take this to its abstract conclusions, maybe the world is only 1 days old, has always been 1 days old, and will always be 1 days old. In other words, the world was created exactly as it is, including our memories, evidence of cosmic expansion, and everything else. Is it pragmatic to assume this? Even if the world has existed as it is for 1 day it is most useful to assume that it is billions of years old, because that has future implications in the form of things you can do with that information. You can extrapolate current trends to find things out, like how climate change is going to cause many organisms to go extinct. If you assume that everything is created, you have to make a rational to cover or deny this fact, such as "it's gods plan". Unfortunately, although the agnostic position of "we don't know what is right, and we can never know" is the least pragmatic.
    Sand
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    >>>first your statement about if we can not test something, then it is not science simply isn't true. it just means we have not found a way to test something yet.

    I agree.
    Until we find a way to test then we are only hypothesizing.
    We cannot say man evolved if it is only a hypothesis.


    >>>even in a laboratory today we can change over time many key traits and produces changes in plants and small animals such as mice.

    Yes, you can change the traits but the goal is to prove that it changed itself.
    By a scientist changing the traits, it is placing the evidence toward a creator.
    Intelligent designer changing the traits.
    The question is not if there is a button, but can the button press itself without assistance.


    >>>I do not agree about 6000  years is enough time for 1 species to change. I am talking about millions of years.

    How can you test for millions of years?
    If you cannot test for it, or know a way to test for it then we are just hypothesizing.
    According to science, you cannot say something is true without valid evidence.
    If you want to say evolution is a religion then yes you can state conclusions without evidence.


    >>>as well, I think you should look upon how closely related biologically that we are to chimps if you wish to argue chromosomes.  as well, you seem to be stuck on one point, macroevolution; one species into another; so it must be apparent, that you are talking about one particular spieces, and that is humans for as far as I know you do not have any other speices in mind.

    You know that the primary difference between two different species is the chromosomes.
    When the chromosomes are off they cannot mate.
    Somehow and someway  there was a change in the chromosomes
    Which you say happened over millions of years, the chromosomes changed, which bridged the gap
    If you notice that there are one or more gaps between every species

    Fish to Amphibians
    Backbone would have had to undergo major modifications for the fish to become amphibians.
    Pelvis had to be added, but no fossil fish have known that show how the pelvis of amphibians.
    Fish fins to become jointed limbs with wrists and toes, accompanied by major alterations in muscles and nerves.
    Gills must change to lungs.
    Fish blood is pumped by a two-chambered heart, but in amphibians by a three-chambered heart.
    Fish receive sound through their bodies, but most toads and frogs have eardrums.
    No fish has an extendable tongue, but amphibians such as toads do.
    Amphibians have the added ability to blink since they have a membrane they pass over their eyeballs, keeping them clean.
    There should be billions of each of these transitions, they disappeared.

    Amphibian and Reptile
    Amphibian and reptile pose other serious problems, the shelled egg.
    Amphibian laid soft, jelly-like eggs in water, where the eggs were fertilized externally.
    Fish and amphibian eggs release their wastes in the surrounding water as soluble urea.
    Urea within the shelled eggs of reptiles would kill the embryos.
    The egg yolk is food for the growing reptile embryo, egg tooth, to help it break out of its prison.
    The biggest problem is fertilization.
    There should be billions of each of these transitions, they disappeared.

    Reptile and Bird
    Reptiles are cold-blooded animals, Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded.
    Reptiles and birds lay eggs, only birds must incubate theirs.
    New instincts for building the nest, for hatching the eggs and for feeding the young.
    Feathers are unique to birds, reptilian scales.
    Bird’s bones are thin and hollow, unlike the reptile’s solid ones.
    Muscular wings beating for hours or even days in flight generate much heat, yet, without sweat glands for cooling.
    Reptiles and mammals, the lungs take in and give out air. But in birds there is a constant flow of fresh air going through the lungs, during both inhaling and exhaling.
    Bird blood in the capillaries of the lungs is flowing in the opposite direction, it has this countercurrent between air and blood.
    Birds have more sensory cells in their eyes than have any other living things.
    Reptiles have a three-chambered heart; a bird’s heart has four chambers.
    Beaks also set birds apart from reptiles.
    Birds have only four toes instead of the reptile’s five.
    There should be billions of each of these transitions, they disappeared.

    Reptile and Mammal
    Mammal has mammary glands that give milk for the young.
    New instincts and the muscles to suck the milk from their mother.
    Highly complex placentas for the nourishment and development of their unborn young.
    The organ of Corti in the ears of mammals is not found in reptilian ears.
    No diaphragm in reptiles, but mammals have a diaphragm that separates the thorax from the abdomen.
    Mammals also have three bones in their ears, while reptiles have only one.
    Reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw, whereas mammals have only one.
    Reptilian legs are anchored at the side of the body so that the belly is on or very near the ground. But in Mammals, as you know the legs are under the body and raise it off the ground
    Mammals have greatly elaborated their teeth, instead of the simple peg-like teeth of the reptile.
    There should be billions of each of these transitions, they disappeared.

    When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid.
    But when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal.
    Mammals went back to the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went backward—something that theoretically it is not supposed to do.

    They are way more differences! Each difference has to have a billion deaths and adjustments.
    Each of these adjusted fossils and animals is missing.
    Plus small adjustments will kill the animals off completely.
    These are paradigm shifts, without all the adjustments the animal dies.
    Can you imagine a reptile with hollow bones?
    Or a bird without the proper lungs?
    A Cold-blooded mammal?
    And not just one or two, but billions of them living over millions of years, then suddenly disappearing.

    And 95% of these animals are missing!
    Could it be there is no spoon?


    >>>if we evolved from a chimp-like creature, then we may never find any proof because of how gradual it was.

    "Never find proof" - means hypothesis only.
    Once again we cannot say man evolved if it is only a hypothesis.


    >>>a change here and there every thousands of years makes a big difference.

    I agree, but the question is who made the changes, nobody or somebody?
    Nobody - evolution
    Somebody - God


    >>>we do find fossils who are not quite ape nor quite not human either.

    But we have found only 10.
    Because there were several frauds going around for 40 years building fake skulls and burying them, it is hard to determine is it planted or not.
    Plus based on the hypothesis of slow evolution, there should have been billions of skulls.
    Also based on the process of survival of the fittest the evolved ape should have outlasted the ape.
    For the billions of apes to outlast the billions of evolved apes, there is a serious problem with the hypothesis.
    That means the evolved ape was not advanced, and that the ape was more advanced then the evolved ape.
    If we did not come from the evolved ape then we did not come from the ape.


    >>>The weakest simply do not survive on their own and in today's world, we protect them and allow them to breed causing who knows what changes to the human race. 
    >>>Humans with their intelligence are changing the rules yet in doing so are only changing the evolutionary path that they normally would have gone through in the absence of such intelligence.

    This will continue.


    >>>in the lab we have created new species of plants that can no longer host a seed with its original hosts; complete with different chromosomes from the original.

    Once again this proves the conclusion I support, that an intelligent designer made these species.


  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    "The question is not if there is a button, but can the button press itself without assistance."

    Children born with mutations. Cancer happens. Viruses change their keys to infect otherwise immune hosts. Even if we attribute it to some mysterious outside force, i.e. a god made the alpha particle from the cigarette that damaged the lung tissue in a very specific way so that the cell did not die, but instead will become immortal We don't get away from the fact that the DNA of the cell is changing as entropy increases.

    "If you want to say evolution is a religion then yes you can state conclusions without evidence."

    There is nothing but evidence though, millions of dead things in rock, that seem to develop overtime into modern creatures, going through several large extinctions.

    "If you notice that there are one or more gaps between every species"
    You give a long list of all the macro differences between different orders of animals, but what you don't seem to understand is that these types of animals didn't just wake up one day as the other type, they went through multiple stages of changes and this is why there are intermediate species between different types.

    For example, the platypus lays eggs and makes milk, and has venom. This seems to be strong evidence that the platypus evolved from an intermediate species, which branched off to become other mammals and modern reptiles.

    "And 95% of these animals are missing!"

    That's expected, it would be weird if it was the other way. How much do you know about what is buried directly under your house?

    "Could it be there is no spoon?"

    If we are talking about god, gods, or other magical deities then yes.

    "I agree, but the question is who made the changes, nobody or somebody?"

    The changes can and do happen on there own. In fact, for a few hundred dollars you too can edit your DNA using modern gene-editing tools like CRISPR cas9.

    "But we have found only 10."

    I have no idea where you got this from. The National Museum of Natural History reports that the hominin fossil record includes the remains of more than 6000 individuals. Provided that paleontologists are rare and not all of them are looking for the fossils of human ancestors in Africa, that seems reasonable.

    "Also based on the process of survival of the fittest the evolved ape should have outlasted the ape."

    Here we are. Successful killers are we.

    "The weakest simply do not survive on their own and in today's world, we protect them and allow them to breed causing who knows what changes to the human race."

    Except in the Nordic countries were fetuses with down syndrome will be aborted.

    "Humans with their intelligence are changing the rules yet in doing so are only changing the evolutionary path that they normally would have gone through in the absence of such intelligence."

    I completely agree, humans broke the rules by understanding that evolution is a thing. Which reminds me of something I haven't mentioned yet, which is domesticated animals.

    Doesn't it seem strange to you that there is no such thing as a wild dog, dairy cow, pig, goat, sheep, or horse? ( animals that escape captivity are feral not wild ) It is because we have breed these animals to be what we want over time. In essence, they "evolved" based on our selective breeding.

    Cauliflower, Broccoli, Kale, Brussel sprouts, cabbage and a few others all came from the same wild plant that was selectively breed. These plants do not exist in nature, same with so many others. an intelligent designer made these species, that intelligence being humans of course. The principal is the same though. If it happens on it's own, then we can make it happen. Any more we cause it to happen by editing DNA directly to do what we want, which is how GMO crops exist.

    Sand
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot
    >>>The kind of skirts the question of conviction. Even within the Christian faiths, there is disagreement between what is right and wrong, and how things should be interpreted.

    Worldwide there are disagreements between right and wrong and interpretation of most things, regardless of religion or anti-religious.


    >>>I'm no theologian, and maybe there are none. What I do know is that there are way more than 200 scientists that advocate that evolution is the origin of the species, and use the big bang as an assumption for building models of the universe.

    If they do then that is not the scientific way.
    "Science is not about knowing everything, science is about admitting you don't know something and then systematically finding the answer"
    This makes Science more like a religion. Believing something regardless of proof.
    Most religions who follow the Bible, the Bible becomes their evidence.
    But not for all religions, some religions believe whatever they want to believe.


    >>>Yes, there are dragons in the bible, although it depends which translation you use. There are some stories that were rejected during the council of Nicea. This includes one where baby Jesus tames a bunch of dragons.

    You are talking about the apocryphal books, books written outside of the Bible, but put on the pretense are from the Bible.
    These are people who are trying hard to make books that alter stories of the Bible.
    You can easily tell these books as opposed to Cannon.
    Those books were written recently.


    >>>Yes? I thought this was common knowledge that witches and witchcraft are not real, and all those killed for it died for nothing.

    You missed my point. Although not having real power or abilities, they were still called witches.
    Root doctors, although they do not have power still are called root doctors.
    Fortune Tellers, although they cannot tell the future, they are still named Fortune Tellers.
    You probably didn't read the article.
    I not talking about people called witches and killed because they discovered new ways to do things.
    I am talking about people who called themselves placing spells on people, bad omens on people, use voodoo dolls, reading future through palms, crystal balls, etc.
    Their name came not from what they are but by what they did.
    Their tricks did not work but they were still called the names of what they did.


    >>>So the idea of having "creative days" or "god time" or whatever we want to call it is incompatible with a literal interpretation of the bible. This also raises all sorts of questions like how plants survived for millions of years before the sun existed, or how the earth even existed before the sun did. Based on our current models of solar system formation this doesn't jive.

    How were these models developed? Where they there? Or do we still have people hypothesizing?
    No test, no evidence.

    >>>If you don't believe that god created the world in 7 days to mean 7 days, then you think it is fiction. If we are going to be liberal about what a day is, why not be liberal about everything else?

    The bible constantly speaks in symbolism.
    You do the same with someone young, in school, teachers do not explain in detail the dynamic of working, money, taxes, inflation, GDP, MAGI, etc.
    No, you teach them math.
    Teaching procreation, you say daddy placed a seed in mommy to make a baby. Not your daddy and mommy did the nasty, with great details.
    Since the information is not designed specifically for you but all of mankind over generations of time, then it has to placed in a way that would be understandable.
    Symbolism is the best way, Jesus explained that it allows people who value the information to dig, but others who will not value it, it confuses.

    >>>The evidence for evolution and a universe that came from a point via cosmic expansion is very strong. We can prove that the universe is expanding right now,

    I agree.

    >>>and we can prove that organisms genetic information can change over time and extrapolate that change to suppose that organisms evolve.

    Correct me if I am wrong:
    You mean mutation.
    I showed all mutation experiments resulted in failure so far.
    Not to say that mutation will not play a part in the future, but for now, there is zero evidence mutations can make organisms evolve into another species.
    The organism only gets weak and dies.


  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    I am still reading.
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  


    >>>Children born with mutations. Cancer happens. Viruses change their keys to infect otherwise immune hosts. Even if we attribute it to some mysterious outside force, i.e. a god made the alpha particle from the cigarette that damaged the lung tissue in a very specific way so that the cell did not die but instead will become immortal We don't getaway from the fact that the DNA of the cell is changing as entropy increases.

    Are you saying Cancer mutations are good?


    >>>There is nothing but evidence though, millions of dead things in rock, that seem to develop over time into modern creatures, going through several large extinctions.

    95% missing evidence.


    >>>You give a long list of all the macro differences between different orders of animals, but what you don't seem to understand is that these types of animals didn't just wake up one day as the other type, they went through multiple stages of changes and, this is why there are intermediate species between different types.

    You missed the point of the issues.
    First, you said it took millions of years to make a small change, this change would kill the evolved creature.
    Unless you are saying it didn't make a small change but multiple small changes at the same time.
    Then it did not take a million years for one change.
    How many multiple changes did it make within one million years?

    In order to live it needed to make a majority of the changes at once, which supports an intelligent designer.


    >>>For example, the platypus lays eggs and makes milk, and has venom. This seems to be strong evidence that the platypus evolved from an intermediate species, which branched off to become other mammals and modern reptiles.

    From what did the platypus evolve?
    From the fish, amphibian, reptile, or mammal?
    Or are you just hypothesizing, again?


    >>>That's expected, it would be weird if it was the other way. How much do you know about what is buried directly under your house?

    It wouldn't be weird to me. I believe you are wrong, there is no 95%.
    There is only 5%. Which makes it proof of creation.


    >>>If we are talking about god, gods, or other magical deities then yes.
    The magical Neanderthal man
    And the reappearing and disappearing 95% bones


    >>>The changes can and do happen on there own. In fact, for a few hundred dollars you too can edit your DNA using modern gene-editing tools like CRISPR cas9.

    "On there own" if you edit them.
    The bicycle drives itself if you control it.


    >>>I have no idea where you got this from. The National Museum of Natural History reports that the hominin fossil record includes the remains of more than 6000 individuals. Provided that paleontologists are rare and not all of them are looking for the fossils of human ancestors in Africa, that seems reasonable.

    Meaning we cannot conclude unless we test.
    Many paleontologists are saying those skulls are human only, and it is a false discovery.
    Lieberman - "It makes no sense whatsoever to draw major evolutionary distinctions among humans based on skull shape unless we understand the underlying sources of cranial variation."


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Sand
    "Are you saying Cancer mutations are good?"

    One day, the mutations that make cancer happen may makes us immortal. It can be good for the cancer cells, but it kills the individual.

    "95% missing evidence."

    How much of the bible do you think is missing? Have you ever heard of the book of Enoch?

    "First, you said it took millions of years to make a small change, this change would kill the evolved creature."

    It doesn't always take millions of years.

    "In order to live it needed to make a majority of the changes at once, which supports an intelligent designer"

    Not necessarily. I think we talked about this before, the seeming paradox between the sudden evolution that is incredibly slow over long time scales, I will try to do it justice again. It's kind of like the stock market, where hour the price is all over the place and you can only notice a trend if you zoom out. Sudden market changes happen all the time, but usually people are cursing god when they do. Evolution is a lot like that. Sudden environmental changes can force evolution the same way economic factors can force changes in markets.

    Remember, the difference between each animal is a lot smaller than you think. The difference between Chimpanzees and humans is only 1.2%. The information stored in the human genome is only about 725 megabytes, about the same as a 2 hour SD movie. That is like saying the "human" movie and the "chimp" movie has just a single 1'44'' scene that plays out differently. Of course it is the last minute show stopper that explains everything.

    "From what did the platypus evolve?
    From the fish, amphibian, reptile, or mammal?"

    The answer is reptiles and mammals. Monotremes split off from the Mammalian lineage before live birth had evolved, and retained many of the reptile like qualities like egg laying and venom. The idea that there are different "kinds" of animals is fairly inaccurate. They all blend together, which is strong evidence for evolution.

    "Meaning we cannot conclude unless we test."

    We don't need to test here, we need to observe. 

    "95% missing evidence."

    You keep coming back to this like it somehow supports the conclusion that evolution didn't happen. If your house burnt down and 5% of your stuff survived, how much could someone know about you? Probably a lot, but not everything. If someone looked at the rubble and said "95% of the stuff is gone! I think we can conclude that nobody lived here" You would think they were crazy right? That's basically what you are trying to argue though.

    At this point I think we are just talking past each other and arguing in circles. There is enough stuff here to write a small book, so unless you have any new arguments I think we are about done here.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    what about birds evolving from dinosaurs in which science says they have strong evidence and you can easily look up yourself online@Sand
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    what about birds evolving from dinosaurs in which science says they have strong evidence and you can easily look up yourself online@Sand
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    what about the idea of birds evolving from dinosaurs where science say that they have plenty of evidence in which one can easily look up on line@Sand
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    what about the idea of birds evolving from dinosaurs where science say that they have plenty of evidence in which one can easily look up on line@Sand
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    I may have mentioned this already but am having a hard time with my posts.  according to science, humans or what they evolved from, had a tail.  in the womb, humans continue to sprout a tail up to around day 30 and then it is re-absorbed. in rare cases, babies are born with tails which then are removed through surgery. This being said, it seems obvious that at some point in our evolutionary past we used those tails or they are simply an useless carry-over from something that we evolved from. @Sand
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    I may have mentioned this already but am having a hard time with my posts.  according to science, humans or what they evolved from, had a tail.  in the womb, humans continue to sprout a tail up to around day 30 and then it is re-absorbed. in rare cases, babies are born with tails which then are removed through surgery. This being said, it seems obvious that at some point in our evolutionary past we used those tails or they are simply an useless carry-over from something that we evolved from. @Sand
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    science has shown that humans are still capable of growing a tail. even in the womb it has been shown that humans sprout a tail to around day 30 or so where it is re-absorbed.  In rare cases, babies are  born with a complete tail which is then removed by surgery. This being said, it seems obvious that at one point in our evolutionary past we made use of that tail, or it is and was a useless carry-over from something that we evolved from who used the tail.
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    science has shown that humans are still capable of growing a tail. even in the womb it has been shown that humans sprout a tail to around day 30 or so where it is re-absorbed.  In rare cases, babies are  born with a complete tail which is then removed by surgery. This being said, it seems obvious that at one point in our evolutionary past we made use of that tail, or it is and was a useless carry-over from something that we evolved from who used the tail.
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    >>>One day, the mutations that make cancer happen may make us immortal. It can be good for the cancer cells, but it kills the individual.


    "95% missing evidence."

    >>>How much of the bible do you think is missing? Have you ever heard of the book of Enoch?

    Yes, I have, it is an apocryphal book, not part of the Cannon, It is a modern book passed on to make it seem older.

    "First, you said it took millions of years to make a small change, this change would kill the evolved creature."

    >>>It doesn't always take millions of years.
    So how long does it take, 100,000 years, 10,000 years, or 1,000 years?


    "In order to live it needed to make a majority of the changes at once, which supports an intelligent designer"

    >>>Not necessarily. I think we talked about this before, the seeming paradox between the sudden evolution that is incredibly slow over long time scales, I will try to do it justice again. It's kind of like the stock market, where hour the price is all over the place and you can only notice a trend if you zoom out. Sudden market changes happen all the time, but usually, people are cursing god when they do. Evolution is a lot like that. Sudden environmental changes can force evolution the same way economic factors can force changes in markets.

    So what you are saying is that we can suddenly change the environment on a group of animals and force evolution, and get multiple chances.
    Here is the problem with that, until that experiment has yielded a positive result, you cannot say evolution is true.
    I am telling you there are a number of scientists that have tried these experiments before, and it has not yielded any results.

    Millions of years - a dead end.



    >>>Remember, the difference between each animal is a lot smaller than you think. The difference between Chimpanzees and humans is only 1.2%. The information stored in the human genome is only about 725 megabytes, about the same as a 2 hour SD movie. That is like saying the "human" movie and the "chimp" movie has just a single 1'44'' scene that plays out differently. Of course, it is the last minute show stopper that explains everything.

    That is incorrect. Difference genetically. That 1.2 covers a broad spectrum.

    One girl was exposed to a number of languages from babyhood. By the time she was five, she spoke eight fluently.
    A chimpanzee has to be taught sign language, they cannot be exposed to it.
    This proves that chimps are incapable of even the most rudimentary forms of human language.
    If you play a chimp in chess who will win?
    Can a chimpanzee learn chess? cards? dice?
    Human's spatiotemporal visual integration is way higher.
    Also, humans have 3 times the size of the brain and the brain flexibility makes it 1,000,000 times more efficient with no limit on capacity.
    It is like analog computer verses a quantum computer


    >>>The answer is reptiles and mammals. Monotremes split off from the Mammalian lineage before live birth had evolved, and retained many of the reptile-like qualities like egg laying and venom. The idea that there are different "kinds" of animals is fairly inaccurate. They all blend together, which is strong evidence for evolution.

    So their powers combined?
    Is this combo evolution. Two animals combined evolving?
    The platypus has been termed the evolutionist nightmare. Because they cannot determine how or where it fits in.
    The problem is it is not different kinds of animals, it is not a combo of animals.
    It is another category on its own, that has different traits of all the animals.
    Evolutionists don't like trying to explain it, because the traits although appear similar are completely different.
    The fossil shows no relation to any animal.
    You say the words "reptile-like" but no scales, warm blooded, and incubate their eggs.
    One of two mammals that lay eggs.


    >>>We don't need to test here, we need to observe. 

    You need a cranial chart to prove that the fossils found were not human.


    >>>You keep coming back to this like it somehow supports the conclusion that evolution didn't happen. If your house burnt down and 5% of your stuff survived, how much could someone know about you? Probably a lot, but not everything. If someone looked at the rubble and said "95% of the stuff is gone! I think we can conclude that nobody lived here" You would think they were crazy right? That's basically what you are trying to argue though.
    >>>At this point, I think we are just talking past each other and arguing in circles. There is enough stuff here to write a small book, so unless you have any new arguments I think we are about done here.

    Your illustration does not fit.
    If there was a fire then we know we lost something.
    If there was rubble then we know we lost something.
    But in this situation, there is no indication we have lost anything.
    It is like going to a crime scene with one dead person bullet hole shot.
    One detective goes on the evidence before him, saying we are looking for one gun, one culprit.
    Another detective says there was a group of people shooting, only one bullet hit the victim, the group cleaned up, we are looking for a group of people, a bunch of guns.
    We ask how did you come to this conclusion, the person said well 95% of the evidence is gone.
    You ask how do you know 95% is gone?
    Obviously, if we are to conclude that a group of people were here, then evidence must be gone.
    It is gone for a reason because it is the wrong conclusion.
    There is no more evidence, we have everything here to make the proper conclusion.

    Solve this case is very simple.
    Force a reptile to evolve fur.
    Place several reptiles in a cold environment and slowly reduce the temperature.

    Use extreme environment changes to force any animal to evolve.
    Fish to Amphibians to Bird to Mammal to Platypus
    It will not happen. Not in 100 years, 1000 years, or 1,000,000 years.
    Scientists accelerated the time on mutations up to millions of years with zero results.
    Not to say you will not find it in the future, but for now, (I mean this with the utmost respect) evolution is not true.



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    Alright, so there is a lot of stuff here, and I could go into each one individually, but I think we are at the point we are just talking past each other and I have a life to live so I am just going to talk about this one claim you make.

    "But in this situation, there is no indication we have lost anything."

    95% missing data.

    How can we know if we have lost 95% of the data if there is no indication if we lost anything? This single statement completely undermines all the claims you have made based on that point.

    Here is a paper that reconciles that 95% controversy you talk about:
    https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/60/5/719/1643436

    All I have to say is the evidence for a universe that is billions of years old where we exist for no particular reason is overwhelming and the evidence for a meaningful creation is none. If you expect there to be some sort of purpose for you from birth, you are basically asking someone to take advantage of you. If you recognize that there is no purpose unless you make one for yourself, you are free. Freedom is good.
    PlaffelvohfenSand
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    95% data missing is very little by the standards of science. When it comes to astronomy, for example, we are missing not 95%, but closer to 99.99999999999999999999% data - we have not even observed a significant fraction of stars in our own galaxy, for example.

    But this number is absolutely irrelevant. Whether it is 0%, 5%, 95%, 99.999999999% or 9.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%, what we are looking for is a model that describes the observations well. A model cannot describe missing observations by definition, but as long as it aligns with the existing observations, the model is valid.

    The requirement that science collects all the data possibly available, and default acceptance of some other theory otherwise, is a variation of the old good nirvana fallacy. In that fallacy, one compares an unrealistically idealised version of one entity with the real world version of another entity, and declares that the former is preferable - for example, one could compare the idealised version of communism found nowhere but in Marx' books, with the real world version of capitalism with all of its flaws, and declare, "Communism is better!"
    Same here: people expect science to have all the data possible, yet for the alternative version - creationism - nothing really is required, but a few sentences in the Bible. With such incredibly different standards, of course one will come to the conclusion that the evolution theory is less plausible than the creationist theory. Only it is a very disingenuous conclusion.
    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbot
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    That was interesting!
    But if the Bird came from Dinosaurs then the birds would not exist today.
    The Dinosaurs era was too far before the birds we see today.
    Dinosaurs went extinct during the Cretaceous Period.


    All the animals we see today were developed during the Cambrian Period.
    During the Cambrian Explosion.
    Scientist says that all the species just appeared all at once.


  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    Based on what you are saying every hypothesis is valid even without proof (aka data).
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    Why do you not believe creation, when I can easily say 95% of the data is missing?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @Sand

    I am not sure how you derived this conclusion from my words, but that is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that the fraction of data we have of all the available data has absolutely no relevance to whether a theory should be accepted or not.

    What is important is that
    a) No known data explicitly contradicts the hypothesis;
    b) The hypothesis is falsifiable;
    c) The hypothesis has predictive power.
    Most hypotheses go down immediately just based on b) or c), and the vast majority of the remaining ones fail a). But evolution theory does not fail a), b) or c), and we have terabytes of data, which makes statistical uncertainty minimal.

    In case of "creation", the hypothesis fails both b) and c). It does not fail a), and it cannot fail a) in principle by its very design. Such hypotheses are completely useless and should be discarded immediately, so as to not clutter our knowledge database with garbage data.

    Even if you had a case to make against evolution theory (which you probably do not), it would still not redeem creationism in any way. "Creation" is not a valid scientific theory regardless of any data we may have. To make it scientific, you would have to modify it in a pretty drastic way. For example, you could theorise that we were created by aliens that visited our planet in the past and sprayed some biological material around - that is something that does not fail a), b) and c), and you could start making predictions and collecting data. Which is something some scientists have tried doing, to no avail so far, but still.
    Sand
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Sand ;

    Evolution is fact and has mountains of evidence to support it creationism has not one peer reviewed paper to counter the theory ,  why’s that do you think?

    Those who believe in creation myths are exactly the same as those who believe in a flat Earth no matter what evidence they are presented with they deny it in favour of the words from a contradictory book of nonsense 
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Sand I think we have been over this at least 3 times now.

    I have approached this from multiple different angles, but you still cling to this like it's somehow going to save your world view.

    95% evidence missing is 5% prof. We don't need every little detail to draw a conclusion, it just makes it makes the models we make with that information more accurate.

    Evolution is a model of reality, not reality. Equations we use in physics are models. The understanding we have of how stars form and planets rotate is a model. I can not stress this enough.

    If we have built our model on 5% of the data, we might expect the remainder of the data to be self similar to our sample. If we had more data, our model would get more accurate, but there would be a diminishing return on investment. going from 90% to 95% is going to yield almost no new information, where going from 5% to 10% would yield tons of new information. That's just how it is.

    Keep in mind, this is only talking about evolution here. You haven't even begun to contest with cosmology, which clearly proves that the universe is billions of years old.

    The only out for Christianity and the bible is to take a metaphysical interpretation of the book of genesis.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    If evolution is falsifiable. Then show the proof.
    Show an animal that evolved into another species.

    If evolution has predictive power. Then make the prediction now.
    Tell us what animal will evolve with in the next two years. (Because it has been over millions of years for a number of animals.)

    Because if you cannot provide that information then evolution fails b) and c).

    Let's look at a).

    There is data that explicitly contradicts the evolution hypothesis.

    1) Evolution claims to happen slowly. Animal types require drastic changes simultaneously.
    Many scientists claimed to find evidence of animals unique body plans appear suddenly.
    More than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time.
    Book - Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology

    2) Evolution has not been able to explain how animals evolve from one species to another.
    Because of the chromosomes problem, once an animal evolves into another species they are automatically dead.
    This is because they cannot reproduce. So some have theorized animals become parthenogenesis.
    Once parthenogenesis always parthenogenesis.
    Plus this form of reproduction causes evolutionary disadvantages for the species, as it constitutes a form of inbreeding that reduces genetic diversity.
    Without synchronized evolving death will occur.

    3) Something came from nothing.
    This goes against Physics and Logic because it breaks laws in Causality.
    We all know and understand cause and effect.
    It is one of the pillars of science. It is the reason we need evidence for the hypothesis.
    The basic idea behind evolution is nothing caused everything.
    If that is the case then dead hypothesis' do not need evidence, when it can pull on the basic concept of evolution.

    4) The environment can trigger cell manipulation to a positive effect.
    Every cell positive manipulation has to be triggered by an intelligent entity. (CRISPR)
    Mutations have shown to either weaken or kill the life that is affected.

    In a sense, you could say it is not explicit contradictions, because scientists are still working to solve these problems.
    But it is mighty close.

    Science has a process that it has to adhere to.
    Evolution has failed that process.
    Religion doesn't have such a process.
    But by your own words Creation is a hypothesis that has no direct explicit contradictory data.


    That is why I said that Evolution is on the same level as Creation, both have a lot of assumptions and both are not falsifiable.
    It all depends on what a person wants to believe.

  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @Sand ;4) The environment can trigger cell manipulation to a positive effect.
    Every cell positive manipulation has to be triggered by an intelligent entity. (CRISPR)

    ?

    CRISPR Cas-9 is a protein that is found in certain bacteria that facilitates the integration of DNA into it's sequence as part of the bacteria's immune system. IT IS NOT FOUND NATURALLY IN PLANT OR ANIMAL CELLS! Humans have very recently, figured out how to use these proteins to splice DNA into specific parts of existing DNA, allowing for the integration of new genes into the genome.

    When CRISPR Cas-9 is used to change DNA in a meaningful way, it is HUMANS who are doing it intelligently, not god, gods, or other mystical beings!
    PlaffelvohfenDee
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @Sand

    Natural sciences are not about finding "proofs"; they are about constructing models that describe the observations well.

    Predictions do not have to refer to the future event. Predictions may simply refer to finding new already existing data. For example, in astrophysics we make predictions on the outcome of a neutron star merger event; obviously we will never observe one clearly, if at all, but we can say, "Okay, this is what we would expect the consequences of such an event to be" - and then we can find the evidence of those consequences from the merger events that have already occurred by observations.
    You seem to misunderstand how the science operates. We do not perform experiments to see every possible event with our own eyes. We perform experiments to test various aspects of our hypothesis, and those aspects can often be very narrow - but their ensemble leads to a coherent theory as a whole.

    1) Evolution does not have to happen slowly, although in general it is expected to do so.
    2) Evolution explains fairly well how different species are historically related. I am not aware of any serious issues that would put the theory as a whole under question.
    3) Evolution does not claim that "something came from nothing". Sceptics should drop this strawman argument already.
    4) Mutations can be both beneficial and not. Evolution claims that beneficial mutations have a higher probability to stick, due to the evolutionary mechanisms, but individual mutations do not have to be beneficial. It is a statistical effect, not a hard law applicable to individual cases.

    This is not about belief; this is about rigorous logic. If you "believe" in Evolution, then you are doing it wrong.
    PlaffelvohfenSand
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    I admire your efforts in attempting to educate yet another religious nut , it’s absolutely futile and will end in frustration people like this guy cannot have his world view shaken or disturbed in any way so will resort to dishonesty , deflection and lies ....
    Plaffelvohfen
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    perhaps I missed the idea of birds with-in your link, I do not know. However you also said there should not be birds today if they evolved from dinosaurs.  let us see. first, there were many many types of dinosaurs, not just the huge lumbering beasts that many people have the picture of. There were also many small ones, some no bigger than chickens. as well, it has been shown than there were lots of dinosaurs who also had feathers( I am sure you can easily find that out). when whatever led to the demise of the dinosaurs be it a asteroid or not, did not destroy everyone of them.  just like small mammals suddenly found a way to live and spread,  many of the smallest dinosaurs probably found a way to survive as well; although had to adapt and change to fight off the mammals. one defense the dinosaurs had were the upper appendages which had claws and feathers. these all helped the species to survive and as it did developed more feathers to make themselves look bigger. it also helped the species become more mobile and with more agility. which as it found could help the species survive and it kept adapting.  over time bones became less dense and feathers and upper appendages became wings, the beginnings of birds perhaps.  of course, at that time perhaps all it could do was jump and glide but the more success it had with-in this line, the more changes happened  sure, it is true that it probably did not resemble the birds that we have today but we are discussing some 200 million years ago . lots of time for it to slowly and gradually become the flyers that we see today.@Sand
    Sand
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    It looks as if everyone wants me to stop the conversation.
    Much to everyone's disagreement, I did learn a lot.

    @Maxx you made a very strong point.
    @MayCaesar you had the most convincing logic.
    @Happy_Killbot your break down and debate was the strongest.
    @Vaulk thanks for the wisdom.

    Of course, this was only in my eyes.
    I appreciate you debating, as @Dee calls me, the religious nut.
    I did enjoy the whole conversation.
    MayCaesarHappy_Killbot
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    of course, there is the argument that god made the earth and everything with the "appearance" of great age@Sand
    Sand
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    of course, there is the argument that god made the earth and everything with the "appearance" of great age@Sand
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Sand

    **** I appreciate you debating, as @Dee calls me, the religious nut.

    You seem like a pretty decent person and I call you this I guess out of frustration as you seem be intelligent enough to comprehend what I stated as in Evolution is accepted as fact and the evidence for it is overwhelming.

    It’s like this debate keep being put forward by believers knowing they have’nt a leg to stand on 

    Where I’m from deniers of Evolution are indeed placed in the same category as flat earthers is that comparison unfair and if so why?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    I appreciate you too Dee.
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    It is fair.

    It is because people need to feel good about the choices they make.
    It is hard in a world that ostracises you for believing in God.
    Nevertheless, Religious hypocrites ostracise people who do not believe.
    When you are trying to live your life and make educated decisions.
    You get persecuted by people who control others through a Book.
    Your only resort is to lash back to break them of their world view so they can look at life in the way the majority of the world should look at life.

    That being said. I am sorry the way religious people have treated you.
    I apologize for them, but mostly for things, I may say to hinder your own thoughts.
    I only wish to gain knowledge and impart knowledge.
    To gain understanding and impart understanding.
    I know when you say things strongly you are only trying to give tough love to shock people to the appropriate thought.
    I thank you.

    Don't give up on me.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Sand

    Thank you my friend I appreciate that 
    Sand
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @Sand

    **=*It is fair

    It’s because people need to feel good about the choices they make.***

    Fair point. But do you agree that a racist may feel good about the choices they make as they feel it’s a duty as in a form of Patriotism , for example he sees black people as the enemy as they are taking jobs and resources Americans should be getting?
    Someone like that will go to their grave thinking they have made the right choices and would feel good about it 

    ****It is hard in a world that ostracises you for believing in God.***/

    Do you see it that way in your country?  I read recently that it’s virtually impossible for an Atheist to be voted into office in the U S and that religious thinking  has a huge influence on politics and educational matters in the US , is this assessment wrong?

    I’m guessing you’re American apologies if I’m wrong. Where I’m from religion is very easy going my wife and family are Catholic and we all get along just fine , religion rarely comes up in my society and that’s from a country where the Catholic once ruled with a fist of Iron. The people mostly believers got sick of being told how to live and how to behave and the church lost its dominance and merged into a newer softer more people friendly religion 

    ****Nevertheless, Religious hypocrites ostracise people who do not believe.
    When you are trying to live your life and make educated decisions.
    You get persecuted by people who control others through a Book.
    Your only resort is to lash back to break them of their world view so they can look at life in the way the majority of the world should look at life.****

    I guess for me as an atheist I dislike the arrogance of a lot of believers who point the finger and tell me I’m immoral without knowing me , I’m also amazed that someone would knock on someone’s front door and tell them “Jesus loves you “ without being invited , I laugh when I think if I knocked on a Christians door and said “ There is no god” a Christian would be outraged and would be astonished that someone had the temerity to do so


    ****That being said. I am sorry the way religious people have treated you.
    I apologize for them, but mostly for things, I may say to hinder your own thoughts.***

    Thats very decent of you Sand but honestly  not necessary. Without wishing to cause offence I debated before on many sites with believers of all persuasions Muslims , Hindus , Buddhists etc , etc but I’ve yet to come across anywhere anything like the American version of Christianity which seems to be very aggressive and divisive as in one can nearly always tell whether one is talking to a Republican or a Democrat when religion comes up. Nearly every time an American believer will insist Jesus would be pro gun , anti Universal health care , anti social welfare , anti social housing and would be in favour of a wall being built and they seriously gather in churches on Sunday and talk about loving your neighbour

    ****I only wish to gain knowledge and impart knowledge.
    To gain understanding and impart understanding.****


    Long may that continue I’ve seen by your exchanges you’re an intelligent decent person and I apologise for my remark again I guess when Evolution comes up I get a bit heated up as in , say evolution was proven to be nonsense that still would not prove a god exists right?  Why do a lot of believers insist that it’s some grand plan by Atheists to pollute young minds when it’s the total opposite and it’s still there to be challenged by anyone who thinks it in error.
    Creationists have told me in the  past scientists won’t post up their studies as they’re biased,  this is absolute nonsense and the sort of thing drives me nuts as it’s totally dishonest yet believers in evolution are constantly branded the dishonest ones

    ****I know when you say things strongly you are only trying to give tough love to shock people to the appropriate thought.
    I thank you.***

    I wonder do you ever visit sites like Rational Wiki and do a search on various subjects relating to religion? It’s an eye opener and not for those who don’t want to be challenged 

    ****Don't give up on me.***

    I would never do that I look forward to future encounters it’s been a pleasure.

    Here is something called the Evil god challenge the guy who put it together is Professor Stephen Law a Philosopher who’s  books on philosophy are brilliant , the video is short but throughly thought provoking...... https://youtu.be/lqEl_mt7Hhk

  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    Sorry for the delay.

    >>>Fair point. But do you agree that a racist may feel good about the choices they make as they feel it’s a duty as in a form of Patriotism, for example, he sees black people as the enemy as they are taking jobs and resources Americans should be getting? Someone like that will go to their grave thinking they have made the right choices and would feel good about it<<<

    I feel we have to be careful with Patriotism. This is happening with the NBA and China. I think that a racist person doesn't think they are racist, they discriminate about certain groups of people.

    Out of all ethnic groups, African Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, and Native Americans have some of the highest rates of incarceration.
    Take black people as an example, there are more black males incarcerated in the United States than all women imprisoned globally. To give perspective there are just about 4 billion women in total globally, there are only 19 million black males of all ages in the United States. 
    Everyone takes 2 seconds to assess a person, they fill in the majority of questions in their mind about the person in a glance.
    I spoke with a USA Police officer, and he indicated that he has to discriminate to save lives. When he sees certain trends he acts on hunches and ideas about people's character based on income, race, status, etc.
    Not to say this was right, but to get his viewpoint on how he approaches his job.
    Nevertheless, when a person sees these statistics about black people it is understandable why people make assumptions that a black person is up to no good.
    The real answer I feel is the level of legal protection they have in the USA. Because of the economic education of black people, a good portion of their lives paycheck to paycheck.
    Not to say what their status financially is, but if they are well off sometimes they still live paycheck to paycheck. So when serious legal issues occur.
    I have noticed the first things out of a black person's mouth is not "let me speak to my lawyer". If they do say those words it is a request for a public defender.
    Public defender income is $47K - $76K, whereas a prosecutor's income is $49K to $142K. Average prosecutor cases 90 per year versus 250 average cases per year for public defenders.
    This comes to approximately $545 to $1578 per case prosecutor versus $188 to $304 per case with a public defender.
    So which job would you take? Overwhelmed, overworked, with less pay versus high pay, less stress, underwhelmed.
    As far as they feeling good about it, our minds have to justify everything we do or we loose grip on mentally on reality.
    The major mental illnesses are brought on because someone accepts a bad feeling for a decision they made, whether it is in their control or not.


    >>>Do you see it that way in your country?  I read recently that it’s virtually impossible for an Atheist to be voted into office in the US and that religious thinking  has a huge influence on politics and educational matters in the US, is this assessment wrong?<<<

    You are right in a sense. The USA concept is rule by the people. The founders of the USA came to primarily have religious freedom. So one of the pillars estabilished was freedom of religion.
    So the majority of the USA citizens are religious people. To get elected as President of the USA you have to gain the favor of the majority of the people.
    So since the majority of the people are religious (82%) versus 18% atheist, in order to have an effective campaign your goal is to relate to your audience.


    >>>I’m guessing you’re American apologies if I’m wrong. Where I’m from religion is very easy going my wife and family are Catholic and we all get along just fine, religion rarely comes up in my society and that’s from a country where the Catholic once ruled with a fist of Iron. The people mostly believers got sick of being told how to live and how to behave and the church lost its dominance and merged into a newer softer more people-friendly religion<<<

    I am American also.

    >>>I guess for me as an atheist I dislike the arrogance of a lot of believers who point the finger and tell me I’m immoral without knowing me, I’m also amazed that someone would knock on someone’s front door and tell them “Jesus loves you “ without being invited, I laugh when I think if I knocked on a Christians door and said “ There is no god” a Christian would be outraged and would be astonished that someone had the temerity to do so<<<

    The problem with religion is hypocrites. It is hard to be a real Christian. Most people I find do not work to demonstrate the qualities that are a prerequisite to being a Christian.
    In insurance, you are taught a code of ethics that you have to agree upon and maintained throughout the career. The same is the case with Religion but people are not taught the code before becoming one.


    >>>That's very decent of you Sand but honestly not necessary. Without wishing to cause offense I debated before on many sites with believers of all persuasions Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc, etc but I’ve yet to come across anywhere anything like the American version of Christianity which seems to be very aggressive and divisive as in one can nearly always tell whether one is talking to a Republican or a Democrat when religion comes up. Nearly every time an American believer will insist Jesus would be pro gun, anti Universal health care, anti social welfare, anti social housing and would be in favor of a wall being built and they seriously gather in churches on Sunday and talk about loving your neighbor<<<

    LOL. You are right.
    A man forced against his will is of the same mind still.
    I am embarrassed to see people like RickeyD, be so cruel to people, and their viewpoints.
    That I hope I am not coming across like that.
    Religion has lost touch of what it was supposed to be, people use it as a license to do badness and a stick to attack others.
    Love is supposed to be the main quality in the Bible. Whenever I speak with someone of another Religion, I mention "love" and it is like they snap back for 2 seconds.
    But then they go back to their ways. The reason why I think is that they were not taught, instead, they got Religion by osmosis.
    They are people doing bad things claiming to be good people and it is sad.
    This is where changing them is hard because they cannot see who they really are.
    And if you show them in a mirror, then they will deny it.

    It's crazy, I wish an Atheist would be the President and place a law to tax religion at 40%.
    At a 20% tax rate, we are talking somewhere around 90 billion.
    I believe this would reduce the reason for people use religion as a license.

    Of course, that is not my plan. I want to build a business and fund a religious college that teaches positive thinking as solutions for mental, entrepreneur, and sabbatical health.


    >>>Long may that continue I’ve seen by your exchanges you’re an intelligent decent person and I apologize for my remark again I guess when Evolution comes up I get a bit heated up as in , say evolution was proven to be nonsense that still would not prove a god exists right?  Why do a lot of believers insist that it’s some grand plan by Atheists to pollute young minds when it’s the total opposite and it’s still there to be challenged by anyone who thinks it in error. Creationists have told me in the past scientists won’t post up their studies as they’re biased,  this is absolute nonsense and the sort of thing drives me nuts as it’s totally dishonest yet believers in evolution are constantly branded the dishonest ones.

    No problem, I get heated also. People are trying to gain an advantage.
    But this is good to help everyone learn different viewpoints.

    >>>I wonder do you ever visit sites like Rational Wiki and do a search on various subjects relating to religion? It’s an eye-opener and not for those who don’t want to be challenged 

    I will check it out.

    >>>I would never do that I look forward to future encounters it’s been a pleasure.

    Thanks.

    >>>Here is something called the Evil god challenge the guy who put it together is Professor Stephen Law a Philosopher who’s books on philosophy are brilliant, the video is short but thoroughly thought-provoking...... https://youtu.be/lqEl_mt7Hhk

    Fascinating

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Sand


    ****Sorry for the delay.


    Not at all always reply in your own time , I’ve all the time in the world I’m an artist I work from home 



    *****I feel we have to be careful with Patriotism. 


    Yes look at the levels Hitler brought it to . I watched a news report of Trump at a rally giving a speech the audience were wearing white tee shirts saying ....Pro Life , Pro gun , Pro god Trump is brilliant at whipping up patriotism but it is to me very divisive the way he’s doing it and is creating a load of problems down the road.


    Why can politicians not instead seek inclusion , unity , fairness etc, etc?


    ****This is happening with the NBA and China. I think that a racist person doesn't think they are racist, they discriminate about certain groups of people.


    Yes anything may be perceived as  a threat by them 


    ****Out of all ethnic groups, African Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, and Native Americans have some of the highest rates of incarceration.

    Take black people as an example, there are more black males incarcerated in the United States than all women imprisoned globally. To give perspective there are just about 4 billion women in total globally, there are only 19 million black males of all ages in the United States. 

    Everyone takes 2 seconds to assess a person, they fill in the majority of questions in their mind about the person in a glance.

    I spoke with a USA Police officer, and he indicated that he has to discriminate to save lives. When he sees certain trends he acts on hunches and ideas about people's character based on income, race, status, etc.

    Not to say this was right, but to get his viewpoint on how he approaches his job.


    Fascinating and in fairness to the cop wouldn’t we do likewise?



    ****Nevertheless, when a person sees these statistics about black people it is understandable why people make assumptions that a black person is up to no good.

    The real answer I feel is the level of legal protection they have in the USA. Because of the economic education of black people, a good portion of their lives paycheck to paycheck.

    Not to say what their status financially is, but if they are well off sometimes they still live paycheck to paycheck. So when serious legal issues occur.

    I have noticed the first things out of a black person's mouth is not "let me speak to my lawyer". If they do say those words it is a request for a public defender.

    Public defender income is $47K - $76K, whereas a prosecutor's income is $49K to $142K. Average prosecutor cases 90 per year versus 250 average cases per year for public defenders.

    This comes to approximately $545 to $1578 per case prosecutor versus $188 to $304 per case with a public defender.

    So which job would you take? Overwhelmed, overworked, with less pay versus high pay, less stress, underwhelmed.

    As far as they feeling good about it, our minds have to justify everything we do or we loose grip on mentally on reality.

    The major mental illnesses are brought on because someone accepts a bad feeling for a decision they made, whether it is in their control or not.



    Most interesting and thank you for filling me in 


    ****You are right in a sense. The USA concept is rule by the people. The founders of the USA came to primarily have religious freedom. So one of the pillars estabilished was freedom of religion.

    So the majority of the USA citizens are religious people. To get elected as President of the USA you have to gain the favor of the majority of the people.

    So since the majority of the people are religious (82%) versus 18% atheist, in order to have an effective campaign your goal is to relate to your audience.


    I would vote for someone going on their track record religion should never come Into it 




    ****The problem with religion is hypocrites. It is hard to be a real Christian. Most people I find do not work to demonstrate the qualities that are a prerequisite to being a Christian.


    I honestly think a lot of them only claim to be Christian out of habit , it’s like members of a golf club who don’t even own clubs 


    ****In insurance, you are taught a code of ethics that you have to agree upon and maintained throughout the career. The same is the case with Religion but people are not taught the code before becoming one.


    People like you are an example on how a decent human being should behave and you’re walking the walk 


    ****LOL. You are right.

    A man forced against his will is of the same mind still.

    I am embarrassed to see people like RickeyD, be so cruel to people, and their viewpoints.

    That I hope I am not coming across like that. 


    You and him are poles apart , the poor man I feel is deeply troubled 


    ****Religion has lost touch of what it was supposed to be, people use it as a license to do badness and a stick to attack others.

    Love is supposed to be the main quality in the Bible. Whenever I speak with someone of another Religion, I mention "love" and it is like they snap back for 2 seconds.

    But then they go back to their ways. The reason why I think is that they were not taught, instead, they got Religion by osmosis.

    They are people doing bad things claiming to be good people and it is sad.

    This is where changing them is hard because they cannot see who they really are.

    And if you show them in a mirror, then they will deny it.



    Yes , it’s like they proclaim one thing but do the complete and utter opposite 


    ****It's crazy, I wish an Atheist would be the President and place a law to tax religion at 40%.

    At a 20% tax rate, we are talking somewhere around 90 billion.

    I believe this would reduce the reason for people use religion as a license. 


    A very good point 


    ****Of course, that is not my plan. I want to build a business and fund a religious college that teaches positive thinking as solutions for mental, entrepreneur, and sabbatical health.


    I wish you every success with that and thank you for giving me your views I appreciate it 


    Sand
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch