I take more comfort in atheism

midnight rain · 12-03-2012, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slappyjenkins

Tuna I am so sorry....I know you started this thread to talk about your beliefs on God...I wish I had PMed you now.

This has gotten off on an incredible tangent.

I still believe in God buddy

No worries, this thread isn't solely about me. You guys are free to take it in whatever direction you want.

Face · 12-03-2012, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slappyjenkins

I have also heard all of these thoughts on the matter with dinosaurs and birds, but I have never heard any scientific group come out and say 'We've matched up the DNA and did all the research and its 100 percent proven that dinosaurs turned into birds or even that birds are simply small dinosaurs that survived. This is evolution in a nutshell and we just proved it.'

Do they have that kind of proof? That's all I'm saying is show me these cases and I'll be enlightened and get right on the band wagon with you.

The only form of proof you'll accept is DNA from an entire evolutionary chain spanning thousands of years from millions of years in the past before you'll accept one descended from the other?

Clearly, I am wasting my time.

At the very least I hope you don't use the "crocodile pond scum", the "2 suddenly appearing" or the "dogs with wings" arguments as evidence that evolution is incorrect from now on.

slappyjenkins · 12-03-2012, 04:17 PM

---

The Batlord · 12-04-2012, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slappyjenkins

First off Batlord I'll talk about anything anyway I please and there's nothing you can do about it.

I was pointing out your double standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slappyjenkins

you can say gradually over a billion years all you want, it's still not happening!

Quote:

Originally Posted by slappyjenkins

Is this another case of 'eh I'll just say whatever without providing any proof'

You accuse us of just stating things without proof, and you are clearly doing exactly what you accuse us of. If you were consistent, then you would be an agnostic on evolution, but instead you state, categorically, that evolution is untrue. Hence, my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slappyjenkins

You and the other guy, can't remember his name now, and I don't want to scroll up either, are the ones getting stuck on Abiogenesis.

No, you are. You insist on using it as an argument against evolution, but whether or not abiogenesis (life coming from inorganic matter) is true does nothing to disprove evolution (the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations).

Of course we can't prove that abiogenesis is true. Even if we manage to replicate what we assume to be the conditions for it, and manage to create whatever self replicating proteins that were the basis for life on Earth (which, as far as I know, we haven't), it still wouldn't "prove" that that's what happened, at least probably not to your standards. But, unlike the Bible, science doesn't claim to have the answers, it's just a tool that we can use to make hypothesis, test them, and then refine our working knowledge of the way the world works.

Quote:

YOU guys are trying to have a conversation about Evolution, I'm trying to have a conversation with Tuna about Atheism and God.

And I'm not. What's your point?

Quote:

No I tought this was simple enough for you to follow...one species can not mate with another, a dog can only mate with another 100 percent dog...or maybe you believe a dog can hump a cat and make Puppy-Kittens?? Is that true? Is that what you believe? The line isn't arbitrary, when you can't mate with it, its no longer in your species.

Reductio ad aburdum.

Dude, if different species can't mate, then why can horses and donkeys (two different species) mate to create a mule? To be the same species they have to be able to produce offspring that can reproduce. Same thing with lions and tigers. They can mate, they just can't produce offspring that can reproduce. So, different species, reproducing, but not producing offspring capable of reproduction. Thoughts?

As a side not, I would also like to point out that, no matter how thoroughly you debunk evolution, you haven't done a damn thing to prove creationism. So, yeah, creationism...still nonsense. Or whatever pseudo-creationist nonsense you seem to believe in.

hip hop bunny hop · 12-04-2012, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

1. Correct.

2. Incorrect. Morality is fundamentally a societal concept.

3. Can you expound on that?

3. - moral absolutist systems & their followers are not content with being second best. They continually argue & proselytize to prove they're the best, or adapt when necessary. No one who views themselves as "moral" says, "Oh, I'm following a 3rd rate system of morality but that's ok with me".

midnight rain · 12-04-2012, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

3. - moral absolutist systems & their followers are not content with being second best. They continually argue & proselytize to prove they're the best, or adapt when necessary. No one who views themselves as "moral" says, "Oh, I'm following a 3rd rate system of morality but that's ok with me".

If you're willing to adapt, then you recognize your morals aren't absolute.

Newkie · 12-04-2012, 05:20 PM

If people find genuine happiness through their faith, I don't see a problem with it. In fact sometimes I get envious of it. Just as well envy isn't a sin for me I guess.

Face · 12-04-2012, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

If you're willing to adapt, then you recognize your morals aren't absolute.

But then your morals include "willing to adapt". And you think it's best if everyone else would also be willing to adapt, which is your moral stance.

midnight rain · 12-04-2012, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face

But then your morals include "willing to adapt". And you think it's best if everyone else would also be willing to adapt, which is your moral stance.

**Janszoon** · 12-04-2012, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Face

But then your morals include "willing to adapt". And you think it's best if everyone else would also be willing to adapt, which is your moral stance.

Maybe not, maybe he thinks it's fine if other people don't adapt.

12-03-2012, 04:17 PM	#53 (permalink)
slappyjenkins Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 214	--- Last edited by slappyjenkins; 01-25-2014 at 02:20 AM. Reason: done

12-04-2012, 05:20 PM	#57 (permalink)
Newkie Boozy Lad Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Newport, South Wales Posts: 482	If people find genuine happiness through their faith, I don't see a problem with it. In fact sometimes I get envious of it. Just as well envy isn't a sin for me I guess.