Creation vs Evolution

[bigfatron]

Troq, that is one of the most impressive postings in my time reading this forum. Much respect!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

To all, but particularly Maj, who is Ignoring me for reasons best described as petty or specious:

I'll admit some of my recent, and many of my past, posts and replies to this thread have had some rather snide and sarcastic commentary in them. This is unfortunately my defense mechanism when certain people decide to eschew debate and make personal attacks instead of arguing in good faith.

I would gladly resume normal debating if certain people would care to cease making personal attacks and go after my arguments instead of me. If the general consensus is that this is a desirable outcome, then I will even go so far as to unIgnore the French Troll, if he stops trolling.

(I've taken the liberty of reading at random some of his posts, and without exception, they have contained personal attacks on me. I can only assume that all of them do.)

At any rate, I would like to know if anyone has taken the time to actually look up Biological Species Concept online, and read something from a '.edu' source? It's very enlightening on the sad sad state of the ToE these days. All the information accumulated to date is so contradictory to the ToE, that each researcher has to create their own definition of species so they can claim to have discovered a new one. If someone would care to refute this statement, and provide a link to one or more sources that back them up, I'll be more than happy to discuss it.

Any takers?

 

[Archbob]

I don't know what your talking about Fearless Leader. Evolution has perfect logic. The logic is survival of the fittest. The strong will survive while the weak perish, thats been observed in animalas as well as in human society. If the climate changes to a colder temperature for instance, those of a species with heavier coats(feathers, furs, whatever) will survive more while those without will eventually die off therefore only preserving only the genes of those of the fit and through time the species will change to accommodate this new environment. That is the basis of evolution.

Its creation that has no logic at all. It just says a being known as "God" created everything, poof! How is that logic?


How do I know polytheism was the first religion? Have you read any non-reigious based history books? Acient Egypt was the first defined society, it believes in many gods and so did most of acient mesopotamia. Actually the first religion known to history is a belief in spirits called "Amenism" or something, can't remember excalty. Judiasm is one of the older religions, but not the oldest and Christianity is actually one of the middle-aged ones.

About the earlier threads on the right conditions for life. We are only basing that on what we think life could exist in, which is limited. There may be creatures in the universe that could live and boiling level temperatures. I've seen reports on many non-solar system planet with temp ranges around 100 or 150 degrees cooler than earth, I think there is at least some chance that there is life on those planets.

 

[The Troquelet]

Calling MAJ ignoring YOU "petty and specious" is some of the most brilliant humor I have read here in a long time. Those who live in glass houses...

The word choice "defense mechanism" is too subtle [and an insult to Freud] to describe your personal [and conscious] choice to ignore your opponent and believe you are winning the debate.

Again, there is no excuse for personal attacks, which is what you have done. Excusing it on the grounds that other people are annoying you is laughable. I have NOT trolled you in this debate - in fact I have read over my three posts again and in EACH response I use logic to discredit your argument. AGAIN you resort to known falsehoods to support your argument. If anyone read your arguments at face value they would certainly believe you to be an excellent debater. But I have made a habit of checking up on every claim you make, and this one, like most of the others, is entirely bogus.

You have not presented any arguments that I have not refuted - and to keep this debate where it belongs I will CONTINUE to refute each one you make although you greatly annoy me. I have YET to read you rebut ANY of my arguments. Read them and refute them, please.

I would like to see your idea of a personal attack on you in my 3 big posts. Again, put up or shut up. Slander is not a debate tactic.

FEARLESS: this is your last chance. Please do two things for me, if you please:

1. Refute any of my arguments in the 3 big posts on page 14.

2. Bring forth any arguments you have not already posted so that we can debate over them.

Your other option is to concede the debate to evolutionism, since you have refuted NONE of my arguments and I have refuted ALL of yours.

I don't expect you to do this - you'll probably try to wiggle out of it with an ad hominem attack. I'm just making it quite clear for the other posters here that you have one chance - I've lost patience with you - for the last time, debate or be quiet.

 

[The Troquelet]

And here's just one more challenge: take post 275 for example. Find a personal attack in it. Come on. Where is it? Oh, that's right.

There isn't any.

 

[Archbob]

The Troquelet , they will never concede to evolution because they believe in creation, they really can't comprehend evolution it being true, their logic is different from ours(and no, its not faulty).


And one more thing, slander is a great debate mechanism.


But I'm on your side anyways, I am a strict evolutionist.

 

[The Troquelet]

And I'm posting just once more because I am so INCENSED against you! You say that I should go after your attacks and not you! I HAVE DONE THIS AND YOU REFUSE TO READ THE POSTS WHEREIN I DO SO! And for the LAST time, the fact that biologists DISAGREE does NOT DISCREDIT the THEORY! It is a THEORY, it is SUPPOSED to be contested! Theories should NOT be treated as absolute truth - they are WORKING MODELS of how the universe works, which means there will ALWAYS be someone trying to change them to fit NEW-FOUND evidence! Your narrow moral absolutism, your belief that YOU know ABSOLUTE truth, makes you think that when we change a theory we are admitting we are wrong! Yes, we are! That is the point! WE are the ones willing to change OUR IDEAS to fit new evidence, to adapt the theory to new knowledge! YOU are the one who merely twists your words to make your old models of the universe fit reality. Changing the hypotheses to fit reality is the real way to go. AND THAT IS WHAT EVOLUTION AND ALL THESE DISAGREEING BIOLOGISTS ARE TRYING TO DO.

 

[Portuguese]

Evolution started in Creation of some kind. So...
CREATION WINS [dance]

 

[Archbob]

Okay, biologists disagree, creationist point out. But what about the flip side of the coin?

Why are so many branches of Christianity, why don't they agree?

I'm quite sure if there was a god, he doesn't have a 40 step guide on how to worship and sing to his glory.

Yes, that creation is called the big bang.

 

[puglover]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
How do I know polytheism was the first religion? Have you read any non-reigious based history books? Acient Egypt was the first defined society, it believes in many gods and so did most of acient mesopotamia. Actually the first religion known to history is a belief in spirits called "Amenism" or something, can't remember excalty. Judiasm is one of the older religions, but not the oldest and Christianity is actually one of the middle-aged ones.

There were certainly civilizations before Egypt and Mesopotamia. Before Man even built the first city there were people! We can't find archielogical evidence for Judiasm being the first religon because Man didn't even invent WRITING yet! There were rebels against God as soon as the second generaton of people! (Cain in the Cain and Abel story)

 

[puglover]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
Okay, biologists disagree, creationist point out. But what about the flip side of the coin?

Why are so many branches of Christianity, why don't they agree?

I'm quite sure if there was a god, he doesn't have a 40 step guide on how to worship and sing to his glory.

Yes, that creation is called the big bang.

People have broken Christianity into small branches it's true. People have different views of Christianity. How does that prove Christianity is wrong?

 

[The Troquelet]

Portuguese, that's not an argument and you know it!

Puglover: You're using Biblical evidence to support the Bible. Circular argument.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
And here's just one more challenge: take post 275 for example. Find a personal attack in it. Come on. Where is it? Oh, that's right.

There isn't any.

Other than the condescending tone that you customarily assume when addressing me, you also used the phrase 'willful blindness' to describe one of my statements. The only reason there wasn't more to find was because most of the rest of the post was directed at another poster. 274 and 276 are rife with personal attacks, as are almost every other post in which you have addressed me in this thread in the last four pages.

And now you ask me to do what you have refrained from doing, namely address your points, as if I had not done so in the past.

Just to show, and prove, that I have no fear of open discourse, I invite you to collate all of these so-called points, into one post, number them, and I shall take them apart one by one. For the next few days, you are off Ignore, and that may last, depending on how well you can stay on target.

Have at me.

 

[puglover]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Puglover: You're using Biblical evidence to support the Bible. Circular argument. [/B]

Maybe you're right.
But still,
How does Fallen Angel Lord know what the first people worshiped?

 

[The Troquelet]

I see no reason to do so when I have, in posts 247, 274, 275, 276, already REFUTED all arguments brought so far against evolutionism that I have read by Fl2, puglover, etc, on pages 13 onward. I expect you to respond to these refutations, to logically disprove them in other words, to show that I am incorrect, or to bring forth NEW arguments that have not already been refuted so that we can debate these, if you feel that there's no point going over the old arguments since I have already refuted them.

Don't pretend the ball's in my court - it is in yours and sophism to claim otherwise. As I've stated before, I have refuted all your arguments and all these refutations stand since nobody has disproved them - or even rebutted them! Meanwhile you have refuted NONE of my arguments, since you have not been reading them. I am not going to repeat my arguments again and spam this thread - I expect you to read my posts if you want to claim to be a debater.

In short, the burden of debate rests on you. Refute my arguments which are in posts 247 and 274-76 and bring any new arguments you have that have not yet been responded to, please. I look forward to reading you.

 

[The Troquelet]

Puglover, defending Fallen Angel Lord is not my responsibility, it's his. I endorse none of the arguments of other evolutionists in this thread as my own, so don't try to tack them on me, especially when they are illogical thanks.

 

[The Troquelet]

That said, how do YOU know who the first people worshipped?

 

[Jason The King]

Originally posted by puglover


There were certainly civilizations before Egypt and Mesopotamia. Before Man even built the first city there were people! We can't find archielogical evidence for Judiasm being the first religon because Man didn't even invent WRITING yet! There were rebels against God as soon as the second generaton of people! (Cain in the Cain and Abel story)

Thought I might pop in here a second, and say that there were NOT civilizations before Mesopotamia/Egypt. Yes, there were people, and maybe some weak culture, but no civilization. Hence the name for Mesopotamia "The cradle of civilization"

I'm not too knowledgable in these arguments, so I won't make any kind of statement, but I would like to say I have not made my mind up, as too me there are not suffecient evidence for any side. I do believe, somehow, that something had to of happened for us to be created, but it's too complicated or to long ago for us to ever know.

Jason

 

[puglover]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
That said, how do YOU know who the first people worshipped?

God told Moses. He told us.

 

[puglover]

Originally posted by Fallen Angel Lord
Prophecies are one thing, hard facts are the other. Hard evidence is archiology finds and things. If noah had really built that Ark, why haven't they found it.



Remeber, there are also many historical records of the prophecies of other gods(like the greek apollo that came true). So why not believe in the Greek dietes, they have just as much justification as the Christian one.

1.Don't you think something made of wood would have crumbled to pieces over thousands of years? 2. Name ONE non-christian prophecy that has been fufilled.