Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Snowden]

Children inherit traits from their parents


This is called genetics. And in no way can be called "proof of evolution".



Certain traits are better suited for survival than others


Duh? Again, not proof of evolution.


So indeed a person can buy both statements without accepting evolution. Now go away before mommy catches you on her computer!

Those traits that allow an organism to be better suited to survive are more likely to be passed down through the generations. Over the millions of years the traits that appear in a certain group of organisms build on each other to the point where the group is so different from its original species that its becomes its own species.

I am only 14-years-old but yet I can grasp these concepts with ease, while you sit in front of your computer struggling with them, and it shows in your posts when you deny the piles of evidence that is being placed before you. It is easier for you to deny everything than to research the topics and put forth some constructive comments to the conversation.

All these things point to my statement before that you have a severe mental disorder. Also, how tight are the straps on your helmet, because that could have some adverse effects on your already minimal brain activity.

When you make a comment on the discussion its better not to put you age, gives your comment more weight. Also better not to insult and make personal attack on someone because that shows immaturity and also takes away from the weight of your argument.

At fourteen years old you do not understand Jays position. I don't think that you have ever learned anything about Christians or the Bible. In school all your taught is evolution so of course you accept it (Schools in America suck btw). Also you tell Jay to do some research and put fourth constructive comments when what you did was neither of these.

[bedub1]

Theology is a study with no answers because it has no subject matter.

-logy means "talk about" or "discussion of"
Theo- means God

In order to talk about something, or discuss something, you have to understand and agree upon what you are discussing. Hippology is easy, everybody has seen a horse. Proctology is easy....everybody has seen an asshole. But Theology? Have you ever seen god? How tall was she? Did she have a belly button? why?

Circular logic won't work here. So don't even try it.

Now metaphysics does have a subject, the physical world. But like theology, it has no answers. Just lots of questions. Was this world created? If so, when and by whom and why? How is consciousness hooked to the physical world? What happens to this consciousness when this body dies? Why am I here, where did I come from, where am I going?

Logic cannot never dictate that there is a god, unless your logic is circular. And that proves nothing but that you are dumb.

[jonesthecurl]

Theology is a study with no answers because it has no subject matter.

-logy means "talk about" or "discussion of"
Theo- means God

In order to talk about something, or discuss something, you have to understand and agree upon what you are discussing. Hippology is easy, everybody has seen a horse. Proctology is easy....everybody has seen an asshole. But Theology? Have you ever seen god? How tall was she? Did she have a belly button? why?

Circular logic won't work here. So don't even try it.

Now metaphysics does have a subject, the physical world. But like theology, it has no answers. Just lots of questions. Was this world created? If so, when and by whom and why? How is consciousness hooked to the physical world? What happens to this consciousness when this body dies? Why am I here, where did I come from, where am I going?

Logic cannot never dictate that there is a god, unless your logic is circular. And that proves nothing but that you are dumb.

RAH again - I believe from To Sail Beyond the Sunset.

[jonesthecurl]

...except I think the last sentence is your own.

[bedub1]

...except I think the last sentence is your own.

yes..and it's not a direct quote. but I thought it was fitting. nice catch!

[jonesthecurl]

My favourite on this sort of topic was

History bears the same relationship to Truth that Theology does to Religion. That is, none to speak of.

[Frigidus]

At fourteen years old you do not understand Jays position. I don't think that you have ever learned anything about Christians or the Bible. In school all your taught is evolution so of course you accept it (Schools in America suck btw). Also you tell Jay to do some research and put fourth constructive comments when what you did was neither of these.

What?! You tell him not to personally attack people then personally attack him. You say he doesn't understand jay's position and then act as if the Bible has anything whatsoever to do with scientific matters. You complain about being constructive and then aren't in any way constructive yourself.

[Snowden]

At fourteen years old you do not understand Jays position. I don't think that you have ever learned anything about Christians or the Bible. In school all your taught is evolution so of course you accept it (Schools in America suck btw). Also you tell Jay to do some research and put fourth constructive comments when what you did was neither of these.

What?! You tell him not to personally attack people then personally attack him. You say he doesn't understand jay's position and then act as if the Bible has anything whatsoever to do with scientific matters. You complain about being constructive and then aren't in any way constructive yourself.

No, I was not personally attacking him. I was giving him advice to make his position stronger, if that came off as offensive I apologize.

The Bible has everything to do with this discussion as one whole side of the debate is using it as part of their foundation.

And I was constructive. I was trying to help out young friend here, though it seems that I was in the wrong for doing so. I was trying to help him be constructive next time and how to put more weight behind his arguments.

[Snorri1234]

Snorri, Im summarizing what you have so far tried to prove to me. I dont even know what side to pick here, I was just making an observation on something that did not make sense. Please feel free to educate me. As of now you have pushed me away from wanting to join your side of this argument by insulting me and questioning my understanding, which is crystal clear as far as everything that you have explained (which seems to be quite cloudy). Please, won't you write with the maturity of more than and eight year old?

You are mistaking me for someone who gives a shit. This thread has over 300 pages carefully explaining why I and others are right about this shit. If you can't be bothered to read those pages or even google a bunch of this shit I see no reason why I should do it for you.

[john9blue]

I thought those 300 pages carefully explained why I and others are right about this shit, not you and others. How presumptuous of me.

[Frigidus]

I thought those 300 pages carefully explained why I and others are right about this shit, not you and others. How presumptuous of me.

At least you realized your mistake.

[jrl332005]

Children inherit traits from their parents


This is called genetics. And in no way can be called "proof of evolution".



Certain traits are better suited for survival than others


Duh? Again, not proof of evolution.


So indeed a person can buy both statements without accepting evolution. Now go away before mommy catches you on her computer!

Those traits that allow an organism to be better suited to survive are more likely to be passed down through the generations. Over the millions of years the traits that appear in a certain group of organisms build on each other to the point where the group is so different from its original species that its becomes its own species.

I am only 14-years-old but yet I can grasp these concepts with ease, while you sit in front of your computer struggling with them, and it shows in your posts when you deny the piles of evidence that is being placed before you. It is easier for you to deny everything than to research the topics and put forth some constructive comments to the conversation.

All these things point to my statement before that you have a severe mental disorder. Also, how tight are the straps on your helmet, because that could have some adverse effects on your already minimal brain activity.

When you make a comment on the discussion its better not to put you age, gives your comment more weight. Also better not to insult and make personal attack on someone because that shows immaturity and also takes away from the weight of your argument.

At fourteen years old you do not understand Jays position. I don't think that you have ever learned anything about Christians or the Bible. In school all your taught is evolution so of course you accept it (Schools in America suck btw). Also you tell Jay to do some research and put fourth constructive comments when what you did was neither of these.

I only stated my age to show that these are not hard concepts to understand, but yet jay does not seem to get them. Also, how do you have any idea how much I know about the Bible and Christianity? My mother is a bigger Bible Thumper than jay, and up until last year I was a very devoted Christian. I just found that the Bible often contradicts itself and that Science provides many answers that the Christian teachings cannot. And I am sorry for making those personal remarks against jay, I am very hot-headed and was upset by jay's earlier comment to me.

[Snowden]

@jrl332005

I'm just curious, if this is off topic for this form please pm me, but when does the Bible contradict itself?

[Snowden]

Snorri, Im summarizing what you have so far tried to prove to me. I dont even know what side to pick here, I was just making an observation on something that did not make sense. Please feel free to educate me. As of now you have pushed me away from wanting to join your side of this argument by insulting me and questioning my understanding, which is crystal clear as far as everything that you have explained (which seems to be quite cloudy). Please, won't you write with the maturity of more than and eight year old?

You are mistaking me for someone who gives a shit. This thread has over 300 pages carefully explaining why I and others are right about this shit. If you can't be bothered to read those pages or even google a bunch of this shit I see no reason why I should do it for you.

If you don't care then don't post and waste our time. I have no need to google all of this stuff, I already know most of it. And most of these 300 pages are just full of flaming, I have skimmed over them. I never asked you to research this topic, as Im sure you have fully researched the evolutionary side already, just to post with some maturity.

[jay_a2j]

So if a trait becomes dominant amongst a population, that's not evolution?
That, actually, is exactly what evolution is.

Genetics. When I speak of evolution I speak of the belief of one species of animal becoming another. I have no problem with certain side issues that have nothing to do with an ape becoming a man. Things like genetics, adaptation etc. But if you want to continue to say that "brown eyes are dominate" thus evidence of evolution (an ape becoming a man), I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

[Maugena]

The thing is that one can argue that God created our universe, but you cannot argue that God created ALL, because, then, how was God created. Saying that "God has always been here" is no more logical than saying that "something in the universe was always here".

Sorry, just HAD to point this out. Because the above statement was uttered by a self-professed Christian! With Christians like this around, we don't need atheists.

What are you getting at jay_a2j?
Is questioning your own faith folly?


But seriously.
This is what she was saying, I'll just rephrase it for you so you can understand it.
Yes, "God" could have created the universe.
No, "God" could not have created everything because "God" cannot create "himself".
And the rationality behind "God" always existing is completely equal to the rationality behind something in the universe always existing.

@Maugena
Jay actually completely understood what Player said, and then said that Player was not acting like a true Christian.
A true Christian says God always was and always will be. Humans cant explain it. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, The beginning and the End" (Revalations 22:13)

So please stop attack people when you are uneducated about the topic of discussion. I would say something to Jay, but as of yet he has not said anything that isn't true of his faith.

I'm sorry... did you happen to read the same things that I read? Or do you have selective reading so you can formulate an argument based off a fabricated premise?
I'll hold your hand for this one.

The best we can come up with is to say that God and therefore the universe have always been here. This actually seems to be what sicence indicates.

At any rate, it does nothing to either prove or disprove God. However, I am always comforted when science, again, confirms what I know to be true from the Bible.

Player never claimed that "God" wasn't always there.

[jay_a2j]

I'm sorry... did you happen to read the same things that I read? Or do you have selective reading so you can formulate an argument based off a fabricated premise?
I'll hold your hand for this one.

The best we can come up with is to say that God and therefore the universe have always been here. This actually seems to be what sicence indicates.

At any rate, it does nothing to either prove or disprove God. However, I am always comforted when science, again, confirms what I know to be true from the Bible.

Player never claimed that "God" wasn't always there.

But she IS saying that scripture's account of the CREATION of the heavens and the Earth is wrong and that her scientific view of "it always having existed" is correct. Quite the opposite in reality.

[Frigidus]

So if a trait becomes dominant amongst a population, that's not evolution?
That, actually, is exactly what evolution is.

Genetics. When I speak of evolution I speak of the belief of one species of animal becoming another. I have no problem with certain side issues that have nothing to do with an ape becoming a man. Things like genetics, adaptation etc. But if you want to continue to say that "brown eyes are dominate" thus evidence of evolution (an ape becoming a man), I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

Ape to man is hardly a huge leap. It's about as shocking as horse to pony.

[Lionz]

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/fiction/heinlein.html

A personal correspondence from Virginia Heinlein was posted to a 1982 issue of MASONIC Digest and suggests Robert Heinlein was not a freemason at one or more point at least maybe, but hmm.......

[tzor]

But she IS saying that scripture's account of the CREATION of the heavens and the Earth is wrong and that her scientific view of "it always having existed" is correct. Quite the opposite in reality.

I'm pretty sure that PLAYER has never, ever, even suggested that the earth "always existed."

And to nit pick even further, it's "your interpertation of scripture's account of the creation of heavens and the earth."

[Lionz]

Have you seen a chimp foot before Frig?

Do you have an example of a single fossil that suggests to you that humans share common ancestry with chimps? And should there not be literally millions that clearly suggest that if you're right? How about we discuss so called Lucy or Nebraska man or Piltdown man?

[Maugena]

So if a trait becomes dominant amongst a population, that's not evolution?
That, actually, is exactly what evolution is.

Genetics. When I speak of evolution I speak of the belief of one species of animal becoming another. I have no problem with certain side issues that have nothing to do with an ape becoming a man. Things like genetics, adaptation etc. But if you want to continue to say that "brown eyes are dominate" thus evidence of evolution (an ape becoming a man), I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

I'm sorry, jay_a2j, but you'll have to define for me when one species becomes another. Because honestly, I don't think you can.
I fully understand my stance on evolution.
Evolution comes with reproduction.
On the smallest scale, the next generation is evolved.
The reason why you can't see evolution is because you're looking for drastic changes in a single leap.
That just doesn't happen.

In order for such a thing to happen, the DNA in the sperm and egg of a human would have to be considerably fucked up.
Assuming that the sperm and egg are capable of creating a living being, despite being fucked up, the new being would have to be able to reproduce, for one, and be able to live long enough to see reproduction at least once in its lifetime.
Now hopefully the offspring would be more than a single creature-if the original creature only reproduced a single time, so it could have the potential to make a species of its own.
/endramble

Humans only produce a new generation within a general span of 15-50 years.
In order for you to see a drastic change in appearance in the species, you would probably have to outlive a dozen plus generations.
As for smaller scale organisms that reproduce at a faster rate, evolution is very, very, apparent.

Honestly though, I'll give you another example because I doubt you got anything from that.
You say that a specific trait that becomes dominant cannot be evolution.
Why then would we have multiple types of human beings if it cannot be evolution?
White people genetically have color-less skin?
Black people genetically have dark skin?
Or perhaps there were only black people to begin with and then a few black people started moving north, had their skin become paler over some time to the point that it was a dominant feature in a particular region?
Seriously.
How do you define one creature being different from another? How do you classify a species?
If black != white, they must be different.
One or the other must have evolved to have lighter/darker skin. To what purpose? Who knows.
The point is that difference came from evolution. It's a smaller scale compared to just plain old monkeys, but it's there nonetheless.
So accept it and move on.

[Lionz]

Maugena,

Can people not raise hundreds of thousands of generations of fruit flies in a single human lifetime?

[Lionz]

Fruit Flies

For instance, when I was in school we did the fruit fly experiment. They raised flies in the laboratory. They nuked them, they microwaved them, and they x-rayed them. They got those flies to have mutated babies. They got flies with curled wings. They fly around in circles and couldn’t go anywhere. Flies with red eyes, and white eyes and brown eyes. They got flies with no wings at all! What do you call that? A crawl? Can’t fly. After raising 80,000 generations of flies, they concluded: "well, boys and girls, we have some conclusions to reach. All the mutations that we observed made the fly worse off than great, great, great, great grandpa fly." Good observation. Everything they did to those flies wrecked them. Conclusion: "Flies must have evolved as far as they can go." No, no, no. (Jump, frog, jump.) You’ve got the wrong conclusion. It could be that --- made the flies right the first time. Why do they have to conclude evolution is done?

Note: A word is replaced with dashes in there by me and I'm misquoting maybe.

[Maugena]

I'm sorry... did you happen to read the same things that I read? Or do you have selective reading so you can formulate an argument based off a fabricated premise?
I'll hold your hand for this one.

The best we can come up with is to say that God and therefore the universe have always been here. This actually seems to be what sicence indicates.

At any rate, it does nothing to either prove or disprove God. However, I am always comforted when science, again, confirms what I know to be true from the Bible.

Player never claimed that "God" wasn't always there.

But she IS saying that scripture's account of the CREATION of the heavens and the Earth is wrong and that her scientific view of "it always having existed" is correct. Quite the opposite in reality.

While (the bolded part) that may be, Snowden's accusation was still incorrect.