The Mystery Thread

[Earthling]

Are you going to be sensible or are you going to continue being obtuse?

Apparently I'm going to continue being obtuse.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Apparently I'm going to continue being obtuse.

But why? Why are you so afraid to actually explain your position?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly. And this isn't an exclusive phenomenon to scientific inquiry. All the evidence for the majority of your life would have you defending Pluto as a planet and Evolution as fact. You can be wrong.

Pluto is still a planet, it is now classified as a dwarf planet. Once again your inability to understand how science advances only harms your ability to debate.

 

[Earthling]

But why? Why are you so afraid to actually explain your position?

I'm not afraid of anything. The question is why do you think that I have to explain my position? I'm not likely to be baited into a discussion on the ridiculous. Am I asking you to explain your position?

 

[Earthling]

Pluto is still a planet, it is now classified as a dwarf planet. Once again your inability to understand how science advances only harms your ability to debate.

I'm not interested in a debate. How many times have I told you that? If I'm unable to debate why are you trying to provoke me?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not interested in a debate. How many times have I told you that? If I'm unable to debate why are you trying to provoke me?

Because you keep making obviously false claims.

 

[Earthling]

Because you keep making obviously false claims.

Very well, then, I'll not say another word on the subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not afraid of anything. The question is why do you think that I have to explain my position? I'm not likely to be baited into a discussion on the ridiculous. Am I asking you to explain your position?

I am not the only one that sees your fear.

If you don't want a debate there are several options. Making false claims about the theory of evolution is not one of them.

 

[gnostic]

I'm not afraid of anything. The question is why do you think that I have to explain my position? I'm not likely to be baited into a discussion on the ridiculous.

If you don’t clarify or explain your view, then your position remains ridiculous.

There is no need to “bait you”, because your views are ridiculous all on their own, like your needs to be obtuse.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not afraid of anything. The question is why do you think that I have to explain my position?

Because this is a debate forum. If you're not willing to explain your position, why are you here?

I'm not likely to be baited into a discussion on the ridiculous. Am I asking you to explain your position?

Asking people to explain their position is literally the reason you started this thread.

 

[Jollybear]

That's not how evolution works.

First, start by asking yourself what is the broadest definition of the function of each of those organs. We'll take lungs as an example. Lungs take oxygen from the air and turn it into energy to fuel the body, so the broadest definition of their function is converting things from our environment into energy for the organism - it is merely a specialized form of that function. With this in mind, imagine generation after generation of organisms, each one with some way to derive energy from their environment, until they eventually evolved specifically specialized organs for doing so in a more efficient or convenient way in their particular environment. It's not "one evolving before the other" - evolution doesn't work on producing one organ at a time - all functions of an organism are in constant development.

And doesnt that show design?

What on earth gives you that impression? You are aware that there are lots of organisms that survive without all of those organs, right?

Different designs. Those other organisms cabt survive without all there vital parts, thats the point.

Except chickens evolved from earlier egg-laying animals, so the egg came first.

I was not referring to a chicken or egg, i was using it as a metaphor.

What came first, the parrent or child?

So whether it's a good design or not, it's still a design because you deem it to be a design, even if it's not actually very good at doing the thing you alleged it's designed for?

Cars built in the 1800s wer not as good as cars today, but they wer still designed. Same thing. Also, design breaks down too. Just because something breaks down dont mean its not designed.

How did you determine design again?

Many parts that serve a function that work together as a whole.

"Vestigial" does not mean "useless", it means "reduced function".

Ok, fine. They still serve a function. I have 3 mirrors on my truck. If i had only 2, the thing would still be designed. 3 just gives me better sight. Thats another illustration.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And doesnt that show design?

How? There is no inherent intelligence in the process - it's occurs as a natural result of life.

Different designs. Those other organisms cabt survive without all there vital parts, thats the point.

But what does that point have to do with evolution? Like I said, organs don't evolve on at a time, so it's no an issue.

I was not referring to a chicken or egg, i was using it as a metaphor.

What came first, the parrent or child?

The parent.

Cars built in the 1800s wer not as good as cars today, but they wer still designed. Same thing. Also, design breaks down too. Just because something breaks down dont mean its not designed.

But you have to DEMONSTRATE design. We know cars are designed because we have seen the design process and see that people are involved, and we know of no natural phenomenon that produces cars. We don't have to rule-out design, we just don't ASSUME design until we have good reason to. As of now, evolution isn't NECESSARILY explained as a conscious act of design.

Many parts that serve a function that work together as a whole.

Too vague. A rock rolling down a hill can be said to serve a function and work together, but the process isn't necessarily designed.

Ok, fine. They still serve a function. I have 3 mirrors on my truck. If i had only 2, the thing would still be designed. 3 just gives me better sight. Thats another illustration.

Comparing natural things to designed things doesn't indicate anything.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
No one can accept anything that conflicts with deeply held, religious beliefs in which they have been indoctrinated since birth. Period.​

I wonder how many times I have to say this. I was taught evolution at a time when I thought the Bible was equally ridiculous. I was an unbeliever for 27 years. In school I was taught evolution long before becoming a believer, and I thought it was stupid then. From the time I became a believer until now, of all of my family and friends only my mother became a believer and none of the unbelievers that I know of believe in evolution.

Let's try to cut through some of the BS. You stated:

and none of the unbelievers that I know of believe in evolution.
​

So you are saying that you know people who do not believe in any god and also do not believe in evolution. What were their responses when you asked them for their opinion on the origin of humans?

If it ain't GodDidIt and it ain't Evolution, then What?

 

[ecco]

You are the ones who have been indoctrinated.

The fact that you conflate education with indoctrination shows either you have a poor grasp of the English language or you think it's OK to intentionally misuse the word indoctrination.

You actually think it's an intelligent answer to some question of how things work. It isn't.

Yes, I do.
So do tens of thousands of geologists, biologists, microbiologists, anthropologists, embryologist to name a few.
So do millions and millions of people who accept the findings of modern science over the writings of comparatively ignorant people thousands of years ago.

The only ones arguing against it are scriptural literalists because it conflicts their version of a genesis.

 

[ecco]

as well as Rapture

You list your religion as "Bible Believer". You dismiss the Rapture. It sounds like you should refer to yourself as "Bible Picker and Chooser".

 

[Earthling]

ecco said: ↑
No one can accept anything that conflicts with deeply held, religious beliefs in which they have been indoctrinated since birth. Period.​

Let's try to cut through some of the BS. You stated:

and none of the unbelievers that I know of believe in evolution.
​

So you are saying that you know people who do not believe in any god and also do not believe in evolution. What were their responses when you asked them for their opinion on the origin of humans?

If it ain't GodDidIt and it ain't Evolution, then What?

They don't know. And one of them, sort of an odd one, thinks it had something to do with dinosaurs and aliens.

 

[ecco]

ecco:
You are not the first theobabbler I've come across in my time. Comments from folks like you are often along the lines of ...

• You are not ready to see The Truth.
• You must open your mind to see The Truth.
• You have not learned to see the entity that is The Universe.

Those who are not open to all possibilities rarely see anything except what they want to see. This is in every field not just God or religion. This is a lesson to learn.

See. I was right. The second item in my list. You guys are so predictable.

Further, those who do not seek rarely discover anything.

I evaluated religion. I found it was as childishly silly as my comic books.

The Biblical version of evolution...

 

[Earthling]

You list your religion as "Bible Believer". You dismiss the Rapture. It sounds like you should refer to yourself as "Bible Picker and Chooser".

The Rapture is a 200 year old teaching introduced by John Darby and not really very widely accepted outside of the U.S. While we are at it would you like to discuss the unscriptural adoptions of the Trinity from Plato, the immortal soul from Socrates, hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas from Dickens, the cross from Constantine and Easter from Astarte?

I pick and choose my Bible beliefs based upon the Bible, not Greek philosophy coming from more ancient Babylonian teachings.

 

[ecco]

ecco:
Got nuttin eh. I'm not surprised. I've seen it before so many times.

I know you can't justify your beliefs that your god has always existed. So let's try an easier question: Why did your God wait for 99.999999999999999999999999999+% of Eternity before creating anything?​

There was no time. It was eternity.

BUt there was time. Lot's and lot's of it.

e·ter·ni·ty
/əˈtərnədē/
noun

1. infinite or unending time.

If you need to make up your own definitions of words, you have already lost.

Eternity comprises an infinite number of years. So, again, why did your God wait for 99.999999999999999999999999999+% of Eternity before creating anything?

In anycase, there has to be a first cause, a prime mover, a prime reality. There has to be.

Mommy, there really has to be a real Santa Clause! Right?!? Mommy, please tell me there is a real Santa Clause!​

You saying it doesn't make it so.
You believing it doesn't make it so.
You hoping for it doesn't make it so.
You wishing for it doesn't make it so.

 

[ecco]

ecco:
Let's try to cut through some of the BS. You stated:
and none of the unbelievers that I know of believe in evolution.​

So you are saying that you know people who do not believe in any god and also do not believe in evolution. What were their responses when you asked them for their opinion on the origin of humans?

If it ain't GodDidIt and it ain't Evolution, then What?

They don't know. And one of them, sort of an odd one, thinks it had something to do with dinosaurs and aliens.

Oh, well. What did I expect?