Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-04-2015, 03:33 PM
 
32,516 posts, read 37,077,686 times
Reputation: 32573

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
He is trying to get you to accept that what he considers proof is proof you would accept. It is a silly game and has no useful outcome.
It's manipulative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2015, 03:35 PM
 
32,516 posts, read 37,077,686 times
Reputation: 32573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
I won't bother.
Your choice.

As I said, if I had proof I'd post it in a nanosecond.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2015, 03:35 PM
 
30,907 posts, read 32,913,531 times
Reputation: 26919
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn View Post
It's manipulative.
Well, it was a bluff, basically.

You called his bluff.

He was surprised...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2015, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Iowa, USA
6,542 posts, read 4,081,340 times
Reputation: 3805
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
If I post proof #100 to show you are wrong, will u admit it?
I won't say how I'll react to the evidence without first seeing the evidence. Anyone who determines if they will agree with the evidence before seeing it is a complete blithering idiot.

If your evidence is sufficient better than the evidence against you, I will take your side. I won't say which I'm doing until the evidence is presented. How could I? What good is evidence if I must agree with it before seeing it? That completely defeats the purpse of evidence.

I will examine the evidence you post with an open mind. I'll be critical, but fair with it. If it is suffecient evidence, this should not deter you from posting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
You saying something is so does not prove something is so. It is not a matter of ignoring something you say. It is a matter of you proving what you say.
What the hell are you talking about? We do have the evidence. As I said, genetic records, fossils, DNA testing; these are all things we have that lead to the same conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Actually you don't have transition fossils from whales to land based animals.
Well played. They are not transition fossils from whales because whales are a modern species. We do however have transition fossils of aquatic animals to land animals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Oh how convenient. Not only are the species humans evolved from extinct, they left no trace they ever existed. Yet all the other knuckle draggers left evidence of their existence.
What? We know the Knuckled draggers (which is a term you made up and will be the last time I use it in this discussion) went extinct because we have evidence that they were once alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Actually, you have not. All you have seen are cartoons made up by evolutionists with wild imaginations.
Are you referring to this:

Because not only is this not the evidence of evolution, it's not even an accurate depiction of how evolution works. It was likely done by an artists with minimal understanding of evolution, so he interpreted the data to the best of his ability. It's an issue that does sometimes arise in information design.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
It is still the truth. Jesus said God created Adam and Eve. Jesus never lied. Therefore Jesus told the truth concerning Adam and Eve.
Again, this is all circular logic, which is a logical fallacy. We know this because none of this has a beginning. Each individual part of the circle is dependent on the last part being true, which eventually circles around until we're back at the first point, which is not first for any particular reason other than it was said first. It's an insufficient form of logic, and I assure you, if I used it for evolution, you'd call me out on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2015, 04:56 PM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
31,374 posts, read 20,081,067 times
Reputation: 14069
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Again, why should I waste my time presenting evidence to an audience who is preconditioned strongly to reject all evidence that supports Christianity?
Dew, and many other of your interlocutors on CD, are Christians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2015, 05:01 PM
 
32,516 posts, read 37,077,686 times
Reputation: 32573
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
Dew, and many other of your interlocutors on CD, are Christians.
True.

I think Jeff likes to tell himself that anyone who disagrees with the fundamentalist version of Christianity is an atheist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2015, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
31,374 posts, read 20,081,067 times
Reputation: 14069
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn View Post
True.

I think Jeff likes to tell himself that anyone who disagrees with the fundamentalist version of Christianity is an atheist.
Apparently.

And not just an ordinary, everyday, Joe-average sort of atheist either. Nosirree Bob. Jeffy is plagued by rip-snortin', flame-throwin', God-hatin' atheists who wants to ban all religions from planet Earth!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2015, 06:14 PM
 
4,175 posts, read 4,418,765 times
Reputation: 10102
LOL This thread is hilarious and ripe for comment.
Testicles prove intelligent design not very intelligent (but perhaps malicious)?
One swift kick and "Down goes Frazier, down goes Frazier"
I've thought long and hard on this one (pun intended)

Making a plea for intelligent design is so fraught with convoluted explanations.
I'll try one that could suit some literal types (somewhat). God, in his infinite wisdom, designed "man" in his image. Since God had no testicles they were placed as an aftermarket add on design to man since:
A) he created fauna in pairs and then realized "hey wait, my intelligent designed creation has no female gender companion and no seed producing component?"

God as the absent minded professor?


Perhaps the more salient point for literalists would be - if the sequence of Biblical creation is accurate - God created (fauna) with better digestive systems (percent of processing input) than the one made in his image, which begs the question, did he desire the killing of so many plants to have mankind be able to wipe himself? (Toilet Paper)

In regards to male reproductive design, overall God was thinking on optimizing the distribution channel by having it flushed with waste liquid regularly. Oh, and he wanted to remind us daily of our reproductive organ by having it tend to fill with fluid and be larger and hard when awakened each morning.

Simply one can have a belief in a creation of any sort to rationalize many other beliefs but it's more important to understand the books of wisdom of various religions as social construct rules and lessons for optimized behavioral interaction. This is why i always like to say, if you got people across a spectrum of various beliefs I bet you'd find a two thirds majority of greater who would concur on basic things.

Since this is the religions and spirituality forum I'll leave with a few quotes and thoughts to ponder.

John Reigstad, The Logic of God, discussed showing an Aristotlean moderate view point of respect of enlightened pluralism = the affirmation of your own religious tradition and the tradition of your ancestors while remaining sympathetic to the personal traditions of others.

Thomas More (Utopia) "Every person is allowed their own lifestyle and religion but no one is allowed to stand on a soapbox and tell others that theirs is right"

Can't we all learn to 'agree to disagree' in a civil manner on some things, and rather, focus on those things we can agree on that move mankind forward?
Focus on discernment of those who seek to divide people and prosper from others distraction, manipulation and misery and root them out from leadership roles.
Focus on restitution for wrongs committed and working diligently to advance others understanding rather than keeping people dumbed down and conditioned to flash point jingoistic (dogma) concepts?
Focus on rewarding constructive life sustaining and enriching behaviors and not rewarding the destructive behaviors?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2015, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
10,939 posts, read 5,910,808 times
Reputation: 5634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
No, it is worse than that. You folks cry fowl when a Creationist accuses an evolutionist of believing a cat can turn into a dog. Yet evolutionist claim dinosaurs turned into birds and wales turned into elephants. I'm not making this stuff up.
And quite rightly so! I mean, what an idiotic thing to accuse someone of. Fortunately, not many folks do accuse us of such a ridiculous belief. After all, we are the ones who actually know about and understand evolution so why the heck would we believe cats can evolve into dogs? I am beginning to suspect that monkeys can evolve into humans though. Any one out there with a tail?

Speaking of monkeys, have any of you seen that doco on macaques in India? They are so human like! They are playful, naughty, clever (and can be quite violent with each other). Real interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2015, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
10,939 posts, read 5,910,808 times
Reputation: 5634
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
Apparently.

And not just an ordinary, everyday, Joe-average sort of atheist either. Nosirree Bob. Jeffy is plagued by rip-snortin', flame-throwin', God-hatin' atheists who wants to ban all religions from planet Earth!!
If I were to ban all religions from earth, I would actually exempt Buddhism. I know of no instance in which Buddhists have forced themselves down our throats or committed atrocities and so on. I could be wrong (ignorant) of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top