World War 3 in the making...

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Brasso, Nov 27, 2012.


  1. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot
    CLM

    AM is right, you're being willfully ignorant of the scientific method at this point. Theories never become laws. That's not how it works.

    The Law of Gravity is simply the observation that objects are attracted to each other with a pull that is a function of their mass and relative distance from one another (which can be expressed as a precise equation). A theory of gravity is something like General Relativity or Loop Quantum Gravity that attempts to explain why that is the case.

    The Theory of General Relativity has been proven accurate repeatedly in expirements and in practical applications (again, the GPS system wouldn't work if it were wrong). Are you suggesting that since we don't call it the Law of General Relativity that it is merely a "guess"?
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
    #101 Geko45, Dec 7, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012
  2. Gunhaver

    Gunhaver the wrong hands

    2,736
    0
    0
    Question for Molly,

    If you were wrong and evolution were true would you want to know or would you be happy to go on believing something that's wrong?

    In other words, do you really want to know the truth? Are you even willing to accept that you could have been wrong all this time?

    Because (and I honestly mean no offense with this) at some point this becomes a matter of pure intellect. Either you can understand it or you can't. And it doesn't even preclude the possibility of your god. Even as an atheist I leave a little bit of room for god. I personally think that a designer that could design these biochemical machines to adapt and improve upon themselves from but a single self replicating molecule would be much more impressive than one that simply put everything together from scratch. We can't even do that (yet) but we can sit down at the drawing board and produce purpose designed machines. Even our own computers are close to outpacing our own brains but we don't really get impressed with that until we imagine the computers that can design, build and improve upon themselves. THAT is a power so great that it terrifies the people that can follow it to it's logical conclusion and is just the type of power that one would expect to find at the disposal of a supreme being.

    THAT is so much more impressive a feat of design and engineering that you'd almost have to expect an all powerful being to take that route with his designs. To create the entire bio-system as a whole in a manner that it adapts and changes itself to fit the environment perfectly regardless of stresses (in spite of stresses actually) or cataclysmic events is just the way to do it. If one is able.

    Sometimes I wonder if you might be even more impressed with your god if you could wrap your head around this evolution thing. I know many believers who are. It paints a big picture that's so much more spectacular than anything you think happened.
     

    #102 Gunhaver, Dec 7, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  3. Glock36shooter

    No human did. They existed long before mankind did.

    Answer:Molly:
    Dinosaurs were land animals, and God made all the land animals on day six of the creation week, dinosaurs were created on day six. Adam and Eve were also made on day six alongside the dinosaurs so dinosaurs did live at the same time as mankind.

    Glock36shooter:
    I think there may have actually been dragons once upon a time. Too many cultures have stories about them. And if there were such a thing as dragons they probably were one of the last cousins to the Dinosaur... sort of like the Crocodile. But that doesn't change the fact that there were giant reptilian creatures roaming this planet LONG before humans evolved from our ape like cousins.

    Answer:Molly:
    Komodo Dragons are still around.
    Question: Why would you want to have evolved from an Ape instead of created as a beautiful creature that man is?

    Glock36shooter:
    I don't even know what craziness you're talking about. What does our sub conscience have to do with God?

    Answer:Molly:
    With the evolution system the mind is reduced matter. According to your view the mind is indistinguishable from the mind of an animal. They only differ in their degree of complexity. We cannot formulate direct conclusions about the origin and true nature of the human mind (spirit) from a scientific viewpoint. Therefore you cannot believe in the spiritual. I believe God created me and loves me and I love Him. I don't claim monkeys as my ancestors. They are mere animals.

    Glock36shooter:
    Not very different no. Our bodies have similar structures and materials. They operate on the same principles (Although dogs don't seem to handle chocolate all that well... poor guys). We even have some of the same behaviors. We're absolutely different species... but not day an night in our makeup at all.

    Answer:Molly:
    Why would you think God would create everything different?
    Would you prefer dogs and cats have three eyes?

    Glock36shooter:
    Because they don't have complex language. But they can communicate. Anyone that has a dog will tell you they can communicate.

    Answer:Molly:
    My dog wakes me up and 6:00 every morning to be fed. Exactly the same time everyday. But, what about birds? They can talk but only to repeat what we say. We do not know at what stage human language began. That's why evolutionists have to use billions of years. I don't know how you can call evolution science when you cannot observe what happened in the past.

    Glock36shooter:
    That's a horrible over simplification. There are animal behavior researchers that know volumes about what animals think. Simply because it isn't our field of study and we are ignorant of the information doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's your problem Molly... you think if you don't know it, and it doesn't fit nicely into your bible... that it can't be real. You're ignorant... and a fool.

    Answer:Molly:
    No they don't because the animals won't tell them. I could make up a great story about what animals think because no one could prove me wrong. Ignorant AND a fool? I must tell my husband what an Idiot he married.:rofl:


    Molly:)


    +++
    1 Corinthians 2:14
    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
     
  4. ArtificialGrape
    You have either (a) twice ignored the video of scientists explaining how the terms are used in science, or (b) watched the video and chosen to ignore it so that you can continue with your gross misrepresentations of how the terms are used among scientists.

    Answer:Molly:
    The video I watched said that laymen use the word guess. So I am responding in a reasonable way.

    ArtificialGrape
    Of course, it can, and it is. Leaving aside for the moment natural selection or any other mechanism, "life evolved from simple single-celled organisms to more complex organisms" is a fact. No amount of biblical objection is going to change that.

    Answer:Molly:

    What did the single celled organisms evolve from?

    A code system is always the result of a mental process. It requires an intelligent origin or inventor. Matter as such is unable to generate any code. There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.

    Molly:)


    +++
    Galations 3:31
    Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
     
  5. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    It doesn't make me uneasy, it's simply a false claim. That has been explained, repeatedly. AG explains it yet again in his reply to this post. At this point, repeating this untrue claim is dangerously close to bearing false witness.
    No, you don't. You cite the Bible and your interpretation of it as if that was authoritative. It isn't.
    That would be a good first step. Understanding what you're reading would be step number two.
    No, I don't. Mostly because literally all of the evidence tells us that evolution is fact.
    You're conflating evolution and abiogenesis, but other than that this description is more correct than anything else you've offered over the last few years.
    And you're back off the rails... You've produced no evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory, nor have you shown any evidence for your assertion that evolution cannot be fact.
    We've found any number of missing links, and more are added all the time as our knowledge grows.
    Kinds aren't a biological classification, but your statement is false.
    I'm not caught in a trap, I'm willing to examine the evidence. You're the one who's forced to deny plain truths in the vain hope of shoring up your version of Biblical interpretation. Even if your absurd "You have to see it happen in real time to be able to say it is true" were correct, and it isn't, that wouldn't affect the reality of evolution, since it has been observed in real time.
     
    #105 Animal Mother, Dec 7, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2012
  6. Animal Mother:

    No, you don't. You cite the Bible and your interpretation of it as if that was authoritative. It isn't.

    Answer:Molly:
    Don't you cite your science books as if they had some sort of authority? When in truth scientists are still trying to figure out what the Word of God has already told us. They want to know how everything was created and they use words like it could have been possible for this and that to happen. In the Bible God tells us the how and why of everything.:cool:


    Animal Mother:
    That would be a good first step. Understanding what you're reading would be step number two.

    Answer:Molly:
    I did look it up and found out I was right about gravity. That's the very reason you didn't explain. You didn't want everyone to know I was right.

    Animal Mother:
    No, I don't. Mostly because literally all of the evidence tells us that evolution is fact.

    Answer:Molly:
    Only Micro evolution. NO changes in kind.

    Animal Mother:
    You're conflating evolution and abiogenesis, but other than that this description is more correct than anything else you've offered over the last few years.

    Answer:Molly:
    You should try understanding what you read.:rofl:
    What you stated was what you believe not what I believe.
    I believe God created everything. You believe NOTHING created everything.

    Animal Mother:
    And you're back off the rails... You've produced no evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory, nor have you shown any evidence for your assertion that evolution cannot be fact.

    Answer:Molly:
    And you have produced NO evidence that evolution starting with nothingness could be possible. I have stated that I believe in evolution of kind that God has created.

    Animal Mother:
    We've found any number of missing links, and more are added all the time as our knowledge grows.

    Answer:Molly:
    Going back in history you'll have to admit that most missing links have been proven to be just Apes. As you add more you'll find out that these too will be proven wrong.

    Animal Mother:
    Kinds aren't a biological classification, but your statement is false.

    Answer:Molly:
    I believe your statement is false.

    Animal Mother:
    I'm not caught in a trap, I'm willing to examine the evidence. You're the one who's forced to deny plain truths in the vain hope of shoring up your version of Biblical interpretation. Even if your absurd "You have to see it happen in real time to be able to say it is true" were correct, and it isn't, that wouldn't affect the reality of evolution, since it has been observed in real time.

    Answer:Molly:
    Only in kinds. You cannot go back billions of years to observe fish you say came out of the sea with legs can you?
    If you observe these fish by checking the skeletons I could say the legs were really fins to help the fish swim. Can't you see that all this science fiction is just that? You take the word of man.


    Molly:)


    +++
    Hebrews 4:12
    For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and morrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.













    Animal Mother:
     
  7. We're not discussing bigfoot or who killed Kennedy. In the context of a scientific discussion your suggestion that a theory is a guess is, at best, disingenuous.

    The theory of evolution does not address the matter. Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life, not how the first life form arose -- as Animal Mother pointed out, that would be abiogenesis.

    Evolution is a theory of biology. Abiogenesis would fall under chemistry.

    There's no point in getting into abiogenesis given that after 150 years and a metric arse-load of evidence (including fossils, DNA, microbiology, embryology and biogeography) you still manage to deny evolution.

    -ArtificialGrape
     
  8. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    No, I don't. I cite them because they have the data based on the evidence. Only the evidence has authority.
    The only problem being that the stories told in the Bible contradict the evidence, and have no supporting evidence to confirm them. So much for telling us how things happened.
    You weren't right, but I'd be interested to know where you looked it up. Was it AiG or ICR?
    This is correct only because "kind" is not a biological concept and thus can't change in any measurable way. If you're comfortable saying humans and bacteria are the same kind, then and only then would your statement be true.
    No, as usual you're wrong, and you were doing so well for a minute there. I don't believe things are created, not that they were created by nothing. I believe this because it's what the evidence shows.
    Since I've never claimed that "evolution starting with nothingness could be possible" I see no need to defend that position.
    I don't have to admit any such thing. The only "missing links" that are proven to be apes are those from the family hominidae, which includes both Humans and Chimpanzees. Are you trying to argue that humans and chimps are the same kind?
    I don't doubt that, but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence shows your previous statement is untrue.
    No, I accept the evidence. For example, that the articulation of a fin is much different from that of a leg. I also don't rely on words I refuse to define, such as "kind", so that I can move the goalposts whenever necessary.
     
  9. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    Perhaps this will get the point home to poor deluded Molly.

    Scientific theories and scientific laws are different "kinds". One cannot evolve into the other. :rofl:

    Randy
     
  10. Animal Mother:
    No, I don't. I cite them because they have the data based on the evidence. Only the evidence has authority.

    Answer:Molly:
    Your evidence has no authority. It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves, they are always interpreted according to a framework. It is assumed that things make themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.
    So, your evidence is biased.

    Animal Mother:
    The only problem being that the stories told in the Bible contradict the evidence, and have no supporting evidence to confirm them. So much for telling us how things happened.

    Answer:Molly:
    The reason that you do not want to accept creation is that it means there is a Creator who set the rules. Thus you cannot write your own rules.

    Animal Mother:
    This is correct only because "kind" is not a biological concept and thus can't change in any measurable way. If you're comfortable saying humans and bacteria are the same kind, then and only then would your statement be true.

    Answer:Molly:)
    In evolution it requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this "simple" life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things. I believe that God designed each organism.

    Animal Mother:
    :No, as usual you're wrong, and you were doing so well for a minute there. I don't believe things are created, not that they were created by nothing. I believe this because it's what the evidence shows.

    Answer:Molly:
    What is your word for nothing? What is your evidence that these things just happened?

    Animal Mother:
    Since I've never claimed that "evolution starting with nothingness could be possible" I see no need to defend that position.

    Answer:Molly:
    What word do you use for nothingness. Do you believe these self-reproducing organism would have made copies of themselves? That mutations occur and after billions of years you believe an ancient man appeared?:rofl:

    Animal Mother:
    I don't have to admit any such thing. The only "missing links" that are proven to be apes are those from the family hominidae, which includes both Humans and Chimpanzees. Are you trying to argue that humans and chimps are the same kind?

    Answer:Molly:
    NO. I don't have any Chimpanzees in my family tree.
    The evolutionary "tree" says that all of today's species are descended from the one common ancestor (which itself evolved from non-living chemicals.)

    Animal Mother:
    No, I accept the evidence. For example, that the articulation of a fin is much different from that of a leg. I also don't rely on words I refuse to define, such as "kind", so that I can move the goalposts whenever necessary.

    Answer:Molly:
    If only you had a leg to stand on.
    These bits and pieces that science has used for evidence could be a leg or a fin.:rofl:


    Molly:)


    +++
    11 Corinthians 10:3to5
    For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.
     
  11. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Which pretty much says all that needs to be said about your understanding of science and willingness to consider things outside of your religious beliefs.
    Produce evidence of divine intervention and it will be considered. Unfortunately for your position, no such evidence has been found.
    Wrong, as I just wrote, the reason I don't accept your version of creation is because it is contrary to the evidence.
    No, it doesn't.
    The evidence is contrary to your belief.
    What "things" are you talking about at this point? Evolution and common descent? The commonality of both physical characteristics and DNA composition among widely divergent forms of life.
    Self-reproducing organisms would have made copies of themselves, that's pretty much what the word means.
    Then why is your DNA so similar to theirs?
    Correct.
    Giving up then? Did Answers in Genesis not come through with an answer for you this time?
     
  12. Animal Mother:
    Which pretty much says all that needs to be said about your understanding of science and willingness to consider things outside of your religious beliefs.

    Answer:Molly:
    Evolution is a theory universally accepted NOT because it can be proven to be true, but because it is the only alternative. It is a biases of humanism resulting in different interpretation of the same scientific data of creation religion scientific data.

    Animal Mother:
    Produce evidence of divine intervention and it will be considered. Unfortunately for your position, no such evidence has been found.

    Answer:Molly:
    Science which has nothing to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption. You need faith for you assumptions.

    Animal Mother:
    Wrong, as I just wrote, the reason I don't accept your version of creation is because it is contrary to the evidence.

    Answer:Molly:
    But, you need faith for you evidence.

    Animal Mother:
    No, it doesn't.

    Answer:Molly:
    Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this "simple" life form.

    So what's your guess as to how we all began?

    Animal Mother:
    The evidence is contrary to your belief.

    Answer:Molly:
    Is your faith in evolution beginning to weaken?

    Animal Mother:
    What "things" are you talking about at this point? Evolution and common descent? The commonality of both physical characteristics and DNA composition among widely divergent forms of life.

    Answer:Molly:
    How could you believe a fish came upon land and after billions of years became a man? Where did the woman come from?

    Animal Mother:
    Self-reproducing organisms would have made copies of themselves, that's pretty much what the word means

    Answer:Molly:
    So you say that all types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this "simple" life form? For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today.

    Animal Mother:
    Then why is your DNA so similar to theirs?

    Answer:Molly:
    It is only similar not identical. Of course DNA must be similar on all things, because of design.

    Animal Mother:
    Giving up then? Did Answers in Genesis not come through with an answer for you this time?

    Answer:Molly:
    You are the one who didn't answer. How can you say as a fact that these bones would be a fin or a leg they are fragments of these creatures.


    Molly:)


    +++
    John 14:26
    But the comforter which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
     
  13. The atheist in this thread truly have great faith. Faith that one more answer will convince Molly to argue by their rules, or by logic and reason.

    I would say "Keep up the good fight" but it was only actually entertaining for the first page or two.

    BTW, Molly, just curious, what do your child(ren) do for a living?
     
  14. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Not a response to what you quoted, nor is your statement accurate in the least. Evolution has been proven to be true. It has been observed directly, which is apparently your gold standard for acceptable science.
    Do you have evidence that the universe can't be rationally interpreted? Don't you depend on a rational universe when you assume you will come down each time you jump?
    No, I don't. Evidence does away with the need for faith.
    You're stealing others words without attribution again Molly. If you're going to do that, couldn't you at least steal from people who's statements are correct?
    I see no need to guess. Once again, I'll depend on the evidence. Just because we haven't answered every question yet doesn't mean we need to resort to the supernatural for an answer.
    I don't have faith in evolution. I have evidence of evolution.
    I don't believe that, so I don't see any need to defend the belief.
    And there is!!! Isn't that nifty? It's called reproduction.
    It is similar in arrangement, it is identical in fundamental composition.
    Who didn't answer what?
    What specific examples are you talking about?
     
  15. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    I don't think anyone has any illusion of changing Molly's mind at this point. It's been clear for years that she has no interest in considering anything outside her interpretation of scripture. However, if her absurdities go unchallenged both she and others might begin to operate under the illusion that these kinds of things are legitimate objections to scientific conclusions.
     
  16. Animal Mother:
    Not a response to what you quoted, nor is your statement accurate in the least. Evolution has been proven to be true. It has been observed directly, which is apparently your gold standard for acceptable science.

    Answer:Molly:
    The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem.

    Animal Mother:
    Do you have evidence that the universe can't be rationally interpreted? Don't you depend on a rational universe when you assume you will come down each time you jump?

    Answer:Molly:
    Biblical revelations are the key for understanding this world. The Bible is the basic, irreplaceable source of information. Our present experiences do not allow us to really evaluate something that has just been created. God created Adam as a grown man, he was never a child.

    Similarly all the stars were immediately visible in spite of immense distances. So, we have the answer to the question "Which came first the chicken or the egg. It was the chicken. The matter of the entire universe has been created without the use of previously existing matter. This basic principle is shown in Hebrews 11:3. "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

    Animal Mother:
    No, I don't. Evidence does away with the need for faith.

    Answer:Molly:
    Every theory requires basic assumptions which cannot be proved. These presuppositions are not observable, but are of a metaphysical nature. Therefore you need faith to believe them. Therefore it is not REAL evidence.

    Animal Mother:
    I see no need to guess. Once again, I'll depend on the evidence. Just because we haven't answered every question yet doesn't mean we need to resort to the supernatural for an answer.

    Answer:Molly:
    How many years will you need for that? :rofl:

    Animal Mother:
    I don't have faith in evolution. I have evidence of evolution.

    Answer:Molly:
    You have faith in the evidence scientists have provided for you. You have to have faith in the science books and guesses of these people for your so called evidence.


    Animal Mother:
    I don't believe that, so I don't see any need to defend the belief.

    Question:Molly:
    How then did fish become man? Oh yes it took billions of years. But, no one knows for sure how all this came about so you need faith in what these intellectuals write for you in their science books.

    Animal Mother:
    And there is!!! Isn't that nifty? It's called reproduction.

    Answer:Molly:
    So, you Assume that these organisms made copies of themselves and all of a sudden one became male and one became female? Give or take a billion years.:rofl:

    Animal Mother:

    It is similar in arrangement, it is identical in fundamental composition.

    Answer:Molly:
    Because God designed it that way.

    Animal Mother:
    What specific examples are you talking about?

    Answer:Molly:
    The examples you gave me.


    Molly:)


    +++
    11 Corinthians 4:18
    While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
     
  17. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot
    CLM

    No, not really. See, faith involves an emotional investment that is lacking in science. We don't have any sort of emotional attachment to evolutionary theory. We accept it because it's the most complete explanation that fits the available evidence. If some new evidence comes along that falsifies evolution then the net response of the scientific community would be to accept the new information, discard evolution and start hypothesizing a more accurate theory. But, that hasn't happened. Theists aren't able to provide any contradictory evidence to falsify evolution. Instead, they make continual emphatic appeals to emotion in support of their preferred book of myths. That's not science, it's not even good philosophy. It's just absurd.
     
    #117 Geko45, Dec 11, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012
  18. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    I would argue that some already are.
     
    #118 void *, Dec 11, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012
  19. Molly, did Adam have a belly button?
     
  20. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

    Back to plagiarizing and quote mining again? Imagine my shock.
    Stealing from AiG too? tsk. tsk.
    Those presuppositions upon which we base our scientific understanding can be disproven. Feel free to do so if you'd like to question scientific conclusions.
    How is that relevant? How many years will it be until Christ returns? Does not knowing that answer exactly disprove Christ's divinity?
    Completely false, anyone is able to replicate scientific findings if they're willing to invest the time and effort to do so.
    We know how it came about: evolution.
    I assume self-replicating organism replicate. Isn't that the question you asked? Are you moving the goal posts again?
    Why? Why wouldn't an omnipotent being make each animal, not just each species, totally unique? Where is your evidence for God creating and using DNA to do so?
    I didn't give you any examples, I just pointed out that the articulation of a fin and a leg are different and identifiable.
     
    #120 Animal Mother, Dec 12, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2012

Share This Page