SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I'm sorry but this is the most laughable set of claims I've seen in a long time.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Neat Video Explaining the Evidence of Our Relationship To the Other Great Apes
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Skwim
Veteran Member
Obviously, which is why I said "Mere claim ain't going to cut it." MEANING: show me the evidence that has you so convinced.
If you can't then I'm assuming you're blowing smoke.
Boy, talk about a reading disability. Sorry, but after having posted what I did it's the only conclusion I can come to.
Your rejoinders here are nothing but old---very old---creationists points that have been addressed far too many times before for me to bother with.
This silliness fails right out of the gate by referring to evolution as "the theory of evolution." A tired tactic of creationists that tries to make a strawman out of evolution, and this other sly strawman: "The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors." Just as a matter of FYI for you and anyone else who may be tempted to give the site any credence, none of the theories of evolution could ever become laws, which is why science would never seek to make them so. It's a childish creationist ploy here, but considering whom creationists are aiming to convince, not all that unreasonable. How does it feel to be one of their fishes?
Oops, wrapping up here I went back to your link and happened to read the fourth paragraph (I didn't read any further),
"A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists."
This would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. As for why, just ask one of the more knowledgeable creationists around here. Your linked site is truly pitiable. Truly so!
.
Last edited:
That's really only because it's an ethical minefield. Genetically there's nothing really preventing it from working. In fact, it would be a healthier hybrid than the hybrids we make with horses.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Question: What sort of personality is desiring of unending adoration from lessor beings?
Answer: certainly not one that is good! Such a petty desire could only come from a petty being.
As for proving god (or gods) exist? That's easy: have it say "Hi!". And I would expect nothing less than the "hi!" be to all people, everywhere regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, mental acuity, etc.
It would literally be an equal-opportunity, Global 'Hello!'
Because nothing less, would be Patently Unfair; by the age of 2, most humans recognize the UnFariness of Special Favorites.
And I expect nothing less from a being worthy of "God": Absolute Egalitarianism. No one-- repeat NO ONE elevated above anyone else.
But that's just me. I expect Gods to behave Godly. Not like spoilt 2 year olds....
Not pointing fingers, here--not really. Just my personal opinion. Bottom Line: Yes, you can convince this atheist, at least, that (a) god(s) exist(s). Have'em say "hello"
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
WINNER! (sorry about the trumpet fan-fare, but your comment was so brilliant I had to bring them out.
)
“I have created the jinn and humankind only for My worship.” Qur'an 51:56
He spoke with you face to face along with everyone else. You just don't remember. The sense of that meeting is there in the pit of your stomach, it's there deep in your subconscious. You just need to have the right attitude and tools to recall with clarity.
And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified." [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware." Qur'an 7:172
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Yes, but they are religious assertions, and regardless of how many people believe something, it doesn't make it any more true. The majority of the world believed in a flat earth once upon a time, but they were wrong. If history shows us anything it shows that our understanding of the world and ourselves, mentally and physically, has improved and become more accurate with the passage of time. Fair comment? So why adhere to ancient proclamations, to ancient "wisdom"? You don't in your everyday life do you? You and I are communicating via modern technology for example, time to leave ancient beliefs behind I say.
There are two comments I'd make about that: 1) If Allah wanted people to retain the monotheistic belief, then surely he should have done more to intervene and keep them on the true path? 2) Is it the fault of the people he created that they make observations and deductions about the world, to mix "falsehoods" with "truth"? Why should the creatures be blamed? Shouldn't the deity have given them larger frontal lobes in the first place?
I submit the following video to lend some evidence for the above:
Fair enough so far?
We can look at evidences and the balance of probability in due course. I'm just trying to establish how strong the firewall is around you at this point
The firewall is pretty strong my friend, but not so strong to stop me watching the presentation!
I was expecting something a bit stronger tbh, I accept that the spread of Islam was remarkable, but so was Christianity, it proves diddly squat other than they were the most aggressively evangelistic religions. I know you don't believe Christians to be "true" monotheists btw, but they absolutely believe themselves to be monotheistic (despite the baffling doctrine of the trinity), what struck me about that video was that it could have been made by Christians if you substitute the Bible for the Quran and God for Allah. In case you don't know, Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians who reject the Trinitarian doctrine, you are not alone in finding it problematic.Yeah, sure dude, I don't see that you have proved anything "logical" about monotheism at all. When you let in one deity, why not two? You believe in a celestial hierarchal community right? Angels, demons, the devil, with Allah at the top right? Aren't angels gods compared to us, with our poorly evolved brains that means we cant see the truth of Islam? So you're a polytheist, right?Mate, now I'm getting a bit worried about you, you seem to be almost as megalomaniacal as the deity you worship. The answer is NO! I wouldn't care, I'd be happy to see those "humanoids" (shall we just call them humans?) thrive and prosper. I wouldn't care if they didn't massage my ego, and grovel on the ground, praising me. In fact, I think I can safely say I wouldn't want that!
Are you a father? My experience of kids tells me they are born with nothing like a "natural ability", they tend to live in their own little self centred bubble, they need to be taught "right from wrong". I was once a kid myself of course, loving parents gave me my sense of right and wrong, not some deity.
Dude, I did say that quoting religious writ doesn't add weight to your arguments in my world right? Thanks for the exchange anyway, though I'd politely ask you not to ping anymore religious YouTube clips my way. Theists and conspiracy theorists do that a lot with me, possibly because I ask awkward questions they don't have a ready answer for, or maybe that is just my ego talking. I just don't have the time to watch them all, and I'd rather know what you think, not an apologist trying to sell me a message. Nonetheless, keep posting mate, it all helps to keep the tapestry rich here!
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Such a being is unworthy. Such narcissism. Why would the Ultimate Creator need worship?
To what end? Is it so weak, that it needs constant reassurance? Or is it simply vain?
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
That's rather weak of your deity, isn't it?
It is SO WEAK that it's alleged "words" cannot be remembered?
Wow. A two year old toddler has better morals.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
It was Kenneth Miller a Roman Catholic who testified at the Dover trial. He does not support ID of course. Which we all know was creationism repackaged.
The phases through which chromosomes replicate, divide, shuffle, and recombine are imperfect, as DNA is subject to random mutations. Mutations do not always produce harmful outcomes. In fact, many mutations are thought to be neutral, and some even give rise to beneficial traits. To corroborate Darwin's theory, scientists would need to find a valid explanation for why a chromosome pair is missing in humans that is present in apes.
The phases through which chromosomes replicate, divide, shuffle, and recombine are imperfect, as DNA is subject to random mutations. Mutations do not always produce harmful outcomes. In fact, many mutations are thought to be neutral, and some even give rise to beneficial traits. To corroborate Darwin's theory, scientists would need to find a valid explanation for why a chromosome pair is missing in humans that is present in apes.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Written by Michael Denton of the Discovery Institute and it was the discovery institute that got caught lying ID wasn't creationism.
It seems like it was written by a sixth grader, although I would give the 6th grader more credit. He doesn't mention anything about plate tectonics and its impact on evolution or the 5 mass extinction events, bla, bla, bla. That is up there with the most misinformed bull I have ever seen.
Humans are primates, but we are also mammals and mammals didn't rise until after the dinosaurs went extinct.
Baby Bird from Time of Dinosaurs Found Fossilized in Amber
The 99-million-year-old hatchling from the Cretaceous Period is the best preserved of its kind.
Baby Bird from Time of Dinosaurs Found Fossilized in Amber
"Consider the origin of birds. There is now overwhelming evidence that birds evolved from small predatory dinosaurs. Hundreds of stunning fossils illustrate the transitions from dino-fuzz to flight feathers and from grasping arms to flapping wings. The avialans (all birds, living and extinct) fit within a group of dinosaurs called the Paraves, which also includes dromaeosaurids (sickle-clawed predators like Velociraptor and Deinonychus) and troodontids (large-brained predators like Troodon).
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...ence-of-just-about-birds-and-not-quite-birds/
From Dino to Turkey | National Geographic
A chicken embryo with a dinosaur-like snout instead of a beak has been developed by scientists
Chicken grows face of dinosaur
Morphed: When Whales had Legs
Morphed: Before They Were Bears
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Before the dinosaurs.
"
Welcome to the dawn of the Permian, 290 million years ago. Reptiles with waterproof skin and eggs are colonizing the land.
They are not dinosaurs, but synapsids: a group defined by the single hole in the skull behind each eye where jaw muscles attach. Mammals are synapsids too, so these creatures are more closely related to us than to dinosaurs.
Sail-backed synapsids, like the plant-eating Edaphosaurus on the right, are common. They can grow up to 3.5 metres long. The carnivorous Dimetrodon, at back left, is a little longer, reaching up to 4.6 metres. The sails on these species may have heated and cooled the body. Skulking in the left foreground is the massive-skulled Ophiacodon. These early synapsids are known as pelicosaurs.
Before the dinosaurs
Dimetrodon was a top predator.
This animal’s fossils have been found all over the world. They have been found all over Europe, in Texas and Oklahoma in the U.S and in parts of Nova Scotia, Canada. It would appear that this was a very successful and widespread animal during its 20 million year span.
Although Dimetrodon pictures make this animal look like a dinosaur, it was, in fact, a synapsid – which is a type of reptile. It was about 15 feet long, weighed around 550 pounds and walked on all four legs. It had an enormous sail-fin on its back and had a long tail.
Dimetrodon - Facts and Pictures
"
Welcome to the dawn of the Permian, 290 million years ago. Reptiles with waterproof skin and eggs are colonizing the land.
They are not dinosaurs, but synapsids: a group defined by the single hole in the skull behind each eye where jaw muscles attach. Mammals are synapsids too, so these creatures are more closely related to us than to dinosaurs.
Sail-backed synapsids, like the plant-eating Edaphosaurus on the right, are common. They can grow up to 3.5 metres long. The carnivorous Dimetrodon, at back left, is a little longer, reaching up to 4.6 metres. The sails on these species may have heated and cooled the body. Skulking in the left foreground is the massive-skulled Ophiacodon. These early synapsids are known as pelicosaurs.
Before the dinosaurs
Dimetrodon was a top predator.
This animal’s fossils have been found all over the world. They have been found all over Europe, in Texas and Oklahoma in the U.S and in parts of Nova Scotia, Canada. It would appear that this was a very successful and widespread animal during its 20 million year span.
Although Dimetrodon pictures make this animal look like a dinosaur, it was, in fact, a synapsid – which is a type of reptile. It was about 15 feet long, weighed around 550 pounds and walked on all four legs. It had an enormous sail-fin on its back and had a long tail.
Dimetrodon - Facts and Pictures
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Sapiens
Polymathematician
The creationists at the trial were dumb and were struck hard (e.g., Behe looked and behaved like a scared rabbit and most all of their other experts bailed out, too scared to testify).
I have quit reading evo links, but feel free to cut and paste the evidence wikipedia gave, which will not be evidence,
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
See. Waste of time.