Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#75290 Feb 11, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The world or universe did not just evolve without a designer or maker.
Thanks for supplying an example of what I was referring to! If you weren't so stupid you might have seen that before you hit "Post Comment"

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#75291 Feb 11, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Aye, it's the abstraction of it, though perfectly explained in bio-chemic terms. Not to the cat, although they are good listeners.
Does yours talk?
We left of with sensing being a requirement, apart from the senses that would fall under empathy.
For that we have a gene.
I quickly wrote down pg 3547 and further back, what genes and other environmental influences could be important.
Ah recal, we did not agree that food preperation as in cooking food could be of importance too.
Homo erectus 400,000 BP probably evolved a bigger brain after cooking. It tells us nothing about the inside though according to the french study there is a correlation. Haven't read it.
Why should a god that is defined as being ONE because of uniting people as One and therefore being.(Someone wrote that down much clearer, i'm making a jumbles of it. No god without people and no people without god, the unifying factor is ONE and it's a symbiotic relationship.) So what god has we have.
And that god must have evolved t thus as we did.
So how does god sense us...well by being us.
And feeling connected...empathy...gene.
Done luv;)
Are you acknowledging the existence of God? I'm surprised.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#75292 Feb 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
You have no evidence of his existence.
you have no evidence the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, therefore he must be your god.

Charles Idemi wrote:
Liar!

There, there, now, take it easy.
I don't think woodtick was really claiming that you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I think he was just making an analogy.
Do you know what an analogy is?
Let me tell you what an analogy is.
An analogy, according to Wikipedia, is "a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target)."

For example, I remember a comic strip in which Blondie said, "Gee, I don't know what to wear to the party."
Her husband Dagwood said, "How about all those dresses?"
Blondie said, "Everyone's seen me in those dresses."
Dagwood said, "I guess I can't go to the office tomorrow, then. Everyone has seen my blue suit."

Dagwood did not really intend to stay home from the office the next day.
Rather, he was momentaily assuming Blondie's implied premise that one should not appear in public wearing an outfit which everyone has already seen.
From this premise, he arrived at an absurd conclusion.
Therefore, he is arguing that Blondie's premise is absurd.

Back to the subject:
As I recall, you challenged woodtick to prove that the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist, which he admitted he could not do.
From that information, you concluded that he believed in the Judeo-Chriatian god.

I understood, and woodtick apparently understood, that your premise was that anyone believes in a deity whose existence he cannot disprove.
So he switched it around and asked you to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
When you were unable to do that, he applied your own premise--not his own, not mine, or anyone else's.
That's how he concluded that you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Could you please explain why your premise applies in woodtick's case but not your own?
I would like to know, and I'm sure woodtick would like to know.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#75293 Feb 11, 2013
Chucky boy:

Please define “clueless clown.”
Are all people who disagree with you clueless clowns?
Or just all skeptics and Evolutionists?
Or just all people who ask for an example of a limb miraculously growing back?
Or just The Word of Me?

I need to know, because I don’t know who is eligible for my Clueless Clowns Club.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#75294 Feb 11, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
woodtick57 wrote:
You have no evidence of his existence.
you have no evidence the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, therefore he must be your god.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Liar!
There, there, now, take it easy.
I don't think woodtick was really claiming that you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I think he was just making an analogy.
Do you know what an analogy is?
Let me tell you what an analogy is.
An analogy, according to Wikipedia, is "a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target)."
For example, I remember a comic strip in which Blondie said, "Gee, I don't know what to wear to the party."
Her husband Dagwood said, "How about all those dresses?"
Blondie said, "Everyone's seen me in those dresses."
Dagwood said, "I guess I can't go to the office tomorrow, then. Everyone has seen my blue suit."
Dagwood did not really intend to stay home from the office the next day.
Rather, he was momentaily assuming Blondie's implied premise that one should not appear in public wearing an outfit which everyone has already seen.
From this premise, he arrived at an absurd conclusion.
Therefore, he is arguing that Blondie's premise is absurd.
Back to the subject:
As I recall, you challenged woodtick to prove that the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist, which he admitted he could not do.
From that information, you concluded that he believed in the Judeo-Chriatian god.
I understood, and woodtick apparently understood, that your premise was that anyone believes in a deity whose existence he cannot disprove.
So he switched it around and asked you to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
When you were unable to do that, he applied your own premise--not his own, not mine, or anyone else's.
That's how he concluded that you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Could you please explain why your premise applies in woodtick's case but not your own?
I would like to know, and I'm sure woodtick would like to know.
if you make him think like that, he's gonna blow an aneurysm...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#75295 Feb 11, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you acknowledging the existence of God? I'm surprised.
one would have to be found before it could be acknowledged...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#75296 Feb 11, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry!
But you have no evidence countering the existence of God.
Bingo. It's non-falsifiable. Just like the FSM.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#75297 Feb 11, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you acknowledging the existence of God? I'm surprised.
Only to make Thomas Robertson pray for my misguided soul!;P

My concept does not come close to anything states here sofar,i strife.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#75298 Feb 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>one would have to be found before it could be acknowledged...
ONE would be the keyword.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#75299 Feb 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>one would have to be found before it could be acknowledged...
It seems the pope is either going to resign (the first since 600 ears) or revise the process of electing.

If i would make a defence i would say god is in the abstractions.
Words like LOVE, JUSTICE, HATE.
Hard to attack because the definition is fluid.
Connected to personal attribution and emotion.
You can attack the description, disagree.
Attack the attributions.
Attack the rituals and rules of a connected religion.
But never get rid of the concept.
And it becomes harder if the rule states that you can only say what it is not. And that would be part of that fluidity again.

I practiced really hard at being an honest to g-d atheist.
Your supposed to.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#75300 Feb 11, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems the pope is either going to resign (the first since 600 ears) or revise the process of electing.
If i would make a defence i would say god is in the abstractions.
Words like LOVE, JUSTICE, HATE.
Hard to attack because the definition is fluid.
Connected to personal attribution and emotion.
You can attack the description, disagree.
Attack the attributions.
Attack the rituals and rules of a connected religion.
But never get rid of the concept.
And it becomes harder if the rule states that you can only say what it is not. And that would be part of that fluidity again.
I practiced really hard at being an honest to g-d atheist.
Your supposed to.
Not sure I understand. love, justice and hate are human things.(well, animal things...)

what do they have to do with myths?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#75301 Feb 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo. It's non-falsifiable. Just like the FSM.
RAmen...

Our Father, who art unleaven.

from colander come,

so good in my tum, alone,

or as a pasta based heaven.

sop up Your sauce with our daily bread,

and forgive us our slurps, as we forgive those that slurp around us.

lead us not into Spaghettios,

and deliver us from Boyardee,

for Thine is the kingdom, the flour, and the twirlies forever...

RAmen.

(Capitals for langy..)

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#75302 Feb 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Not sure I understand. love, justice and hate are human things.(well, animal things...)
what do they have to do with myths?
things...i guess that states the point.
If god is in them we canot succeed.

Myths are just stories to convey experiences, morals, or history one is not sure of (old homer retelling as if folktales are stuck together v. young Homer that makes a well though out metric Odyssee)
If you do not take them literal i the first place, but also not totally discard them exploring can be interesting.

But something different:
quote
Evolution means the successive emergences in matter of the involved grades of consciousness with each gradation engineering its unique material form. To imagine that sentience emerged from insentient chemicals and that life-forms of superior information content evolved from life-forms of inferior information content is outrageously paradoxical and a shocking assault on the human intelligence.
end quote

Someone allready stated that some creationist are totally convinced of mankinds superiority.
This is the best statement sofar that proofs that.
And the expression of the idea that a çonscious of superior intelligence would thus be at work, to safe us from the indignity of being perceived as inferior.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#75303 Feb 11, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>Only to make Thomas Robertson pray for my misguided soul!;P

My concept does not come close to anything states here sofar,i strife.
lol
You're so cute for saying that.:-)

But the harsh reality is that some people just don't get it. So I'm fine with denying reality back and just be in my own little world. lol

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#75305 Feb 11, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Sorry!
But you have no evidence countering the existence of God.
However the evidence is building up on our side Charles. We have disproven most of Genesis, most of Exodus, and most of Joshua. We know that Moses was a fictional character. We know that the writers of the four Gospels are anonymous and were NOT eyewitnesses.

We have proven that modern humans are the last in a long line of ‘Homo’ hominids therefore evolution did happen.

We know that Adam and Eve did not exist and that puts a real crimp in the need for Jesus. We can now trace human activity all over the face of the globe during prehistoric times….and it DOES NOT match up with the Bible.

So although we can’t disprove God ‘at this moment’….the time is fast approaching when we WILL be able too. We're working on the Bible right now.

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#75306 Feb 11, 2013
Isn't it interesting ( from a sociological view ) how the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster went from religious satire to a full blown atheist/science cult in such a short period of time.

Check out the first video toward the bottom of the page.

http://www.venganza.org/

The girl is quite serious...

Quite ironic that they have become the very thing that they were mocking...lol

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#75307 Feb 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
Isn't it interesting ( from a sociological view ) how the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster went from religious satire to a full blown atheist/science cult in such a short period of time.
Check out the first video toward the bottom of the page.
http://www.venganza.org/
The girl is quite serious...
Quite ironic that they have become the very thing that they were mocking...lol
proof positive that people who believe in such things as gods are incredible stupid...

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#75308 Feb 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
Isn't it interesting ( from a sociological view ) how the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster went from religious satire to a full blown atheist/science cult in such a short period of time.
Check out the first video toward the bottom of the page.
http://www.venganza.org/
The girl is quite serious...
Quite ironic that they have become the very thing that they were mocking...lol
(Right under "Pennsylvanian Pastafarians fight for Holiday Display")

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#75309 Feb 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
Isn't it interesting ( from a sociological view ) how the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster went from religious satire to a full blown atheist/science cult in such a short period of time.
Check out the first video toward the bottom of the page.
http://www.venganza.org/
The girl is quite serious...
Quite ironic that they have become the very thing that they were mocking...lol
It is quite a great mocking of the religion cults, though.

and it clearly points out the ridiculous nature of religion in general.

remember, the existence of the universe and Earth are proof positive that the FSM exists....you said as much yourself...

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#75311 Feb 11, 2013
Satanists Hold Ritual to Mock Christianity in Oklahoma City

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/10/24/sa...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
More Theories to Disprove Creation 1 hr shasha_m 62
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 2 hr ChristineM 1,901
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr The Dude 71
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Chimney1 139,377
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 hr Aura Mytha 175,462
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) Tue The Dude 996
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Mon tbrim21 13,575

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE