do people understand my religious jargon

Author: crossed

Posts

Total: 145
Topic's author
#1
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
i feel no one understands what i'm saying when i post. i'm probably not going to respond to this" im busy". but if you can be so kind and post what you think i am saying. 



god thinking.



the dog sheds its fur during the summer.


god must have known that it is hot during the summer so he designed the dog to shed its fur.






owls live at night and have night vision


Owl lives at night and has night vision.


God must have known that the nocturnal animals like animals would need a way to see. We humans thrive during the day so we do not need that many eye rods and cones that owls have.  this is proof that the creator was thinking when he created life. He gave nocturnal/ night time animals “like the owl” more rods and cones in their eyes which gives them night vision because he designed those animals to live at night. While he designed the day time animals with less rods and cones because he knew those animals would not need them because he did not intend for them to live during the night.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1235




Evolution says that the owl gained night vision by simply living in the dark for a long time millions of years. That's like saying a person causes a door to appear just by staring at a wall.there is nothing to cause such a change.




polor bears

Polar bear has white fur because it needs to hide in the snow.

God must have had knowledge that the polar bear would need a way to hide. So he applied this knowledge and colored the polar bear white so that the polar bear can hide better in the snow. This shows that the being who created this animal whether chemicals or god was capable of thought he saw that his normal brown would not be able to live in the snowy environment so he designed the bears that he wanted to live in the snow white so that they can hide better. Chemicals and or nothing can not think so it must have been god thinking when creating this animal.



The polar bear being in the snow can not cause the bear to suddenly turn white like evolution says. Does looking at wall over millions of years cause a door to appear. No that silly so what causes the polar bear to turn white. If you believe the snow what is in the snow that would cause this

Topic's author
#2
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6

apple distinguishes

the apple when consumed feeds the good bacteria in the gut but not the bad. how can the apple distinguish good and bad. if a bunch of nothing created the universe would not the apple feed both good and bad bacteria. similar how a bar of soap kills both good and bad germs. and can not distinguish the 2 because it does not have intellect. it requires intellect to distinguish good and bad. for example the us military spare an enemy country's  civilian force but kills the military force they can do this because they have intellect and can distinguish good and bad. they can do this because they have intelligence should not the same case apply here


olive oil distinguishes

Olive oil kills cancer cells but spares good cells if god created the universe it makes sense that olive oil can tell the difference between good cells and cancer cells. But if a bunch of nothing created olive oil would not the olive oil kill both good cells and cancer cells. Because inanimate objects can not tell the difference between good and bad. For example pharmakeai people who are doctors use this treatment called chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is a treatment for cancer were the  physician poisons his patience in the hope that the poison  kill the  cancer cells but because the poison can not tell the difference between good cells and cancer cells it just kills them all and the doctors hope that the good cells grow back. So if a bunch of nothing created the universe would not olive oil work like chemotherapy.







there nothing to cause evolution

there nothing to cause evolution. lets say a man is trapped in a room and there is no door. so the man really wants to get out of the room but all he can do is stare at the wall. him starring at the wall caused a fully functioning door to appear. what caused the door to appear. why would staring at a wall cause a door to appear. there is nothing to cause that. so why does the owl over millions of years gain night vision simply by being in the dark sky's. there is nothing to cause this if i turn off my lights im not going to suddenly gain more rods and cones in my eyes which would cause night vision. because there is nothing to cause that. god created the night time animals with more rods and cones in there eyes which give them night vision because he intended for them to live during the night. he designed day time animals with less rods and cones because he does not intend for us to live during the night.


natural selection.



were are all the small teeth meat eaters bones.


if all the carnivores who had small teeth but died out. and only the big teeth meat eaters survived were are all the bones of the small teeth meat eaters

there should be just as many small teeth carnivores as there are big teeth meat eaters. because these carnivores all died out because they had small teeth. if life happened randomly there should be millions of small teeth meat eaters who did not survive.


there are none because god designed the carnivores with big teeth because he knew that carnivores would need big teeth to eat others.


god designed the polar bear white because he knew that the polar bear would be able to hide in the white snow if he did. god designed the bears that live in snow white so they can hide better. god designed the bears that live in caves and logs brown so that they can hide better


god designed the dog to shed its fur during the summer because he knew the dog would get hot with all that fur.


god designed the dog the dog to grow more fur during the winter because he knew the dog would need a way to keep warm


#3
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
yes i do
Topic's author
#4
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
-->
@janesix
good and thank u .this thread is probably going to become a dumping grounds for my debate points while i figure out the best way to word stuff.

humans have
2 eyes
2 ears
1 nose
1 mouth

the dog has
2 eyes
2 ears
1 nose
1 mouth


cats have
2 ears 
2 eyes
1 nose
1 mouth


elephants have

2 ears
2 eyes
1 nose
1 mouth


foxes have
2 ears
2 eyes
1 nose
1 mouth


kangaroos have 

2 ears
2 eyes
1 nose
1 mouth



owls have
2 eyes
2 ears
1 nose
1mouth


giraffes have
2 eyes
2 ears
1 nose
1mouth


theses are not random numbers. if life was created by a bunch of nothing would not these numbers be random to.


if life came from a bunch of nothing would not life consist of randomness

random numbers

humans 
3 eyes
4 ears
2 noses
3 mouths


dog 

1 eye
3 ears
4 noses
2 mouths


cats
5 eyes
3 ears
2 mouths
3 noses 
Topic's author
#5
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
limbs also usually consist of 4 legs or 2 arms and 2 legs. most life consist of those patterns except for a select few
#6
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@crossed
I feel we have to start at the beginning here.

I’m going to start off with the very basic aspects of reality and evolution and work up, if you’re actually interested in trying to understand.

Do you agree that dogs can be bred? To be bigger? Taller? Smarter? 

Or birds - pigeons for example.

Or domesticated farm animals like cows, sheep, or pigs?

How about horses? Or plants?
#7
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Ramshutu
pretentious tripe
Topic's author
#8
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
-->
@Ramshutu
yes. im probably not going to have the time to be that active on this but i will try to get my view across. i fully understand the concept of evolution.




selective breeding i have no problem with. i use to breed guppy fish. evolution is not selective breeding. i bread red and blue with yellow and got a weird mixed guppy. 




evolution is the believe that things over period of times adapted and changed to there environment.


like the owl living at night and gaining night vision.



there is nothing to cause the owl from getting night vision simply by living at night. if i lived in a dark  bed room for lets say over millions of years i gain night vision. what would cause me to grow more rods and cones in my eyes and give me night vision. nothing that's like saying me starring at the wall causes a door to appear just because i want to get past a wall there is nothing to cause this.

god created the nocturnal animals like the owl with more rods and cones during the night so that they can see. but he did not give the daytime critters extra rods and cones that would give them night vision because he knew they would not need them.



alright lets say all the night owls who did not have night vision died out were are the evidence that these creatures existed. there should be so much evidence of these creatures there should be as many prev evolved animal bones as there are dino bones


natural selection


were are all the small teeth meat eaters who died out via natural selection. there should be millions of meat eaters who died out because they had small teeth.and could not survive there should be millions of unsuccessful bones of failed animals. there should be as many failed animal bones as there are dinosaurs.


almost all meat eater have big teeth because god intended for them to hunt or kill. if life happened randomly there should be big teeth meat eaters and small meat meat eaters because it was random and if you bring natural selection into this there should be bones of the small meat meat eaters.


what about herbivores they eat plants and have small teeth. if life was random would there not be big teeth herbivores. what IF YOU BROUGHT NATURAL SELECTION INTO THIS AND SAY ALL THE BIG TEETH HERBIVORES DIED OUT. why would big teeth herbivores die out because they have big teeth. there nothing to cause there extinction. the reason why herbivores only have small teeth is because they did not need it. so god did not design them with big teeth.

i know that there probably a select few who do not fit in this category but what i'm saying is the general rule.



why would a dog die out via natural selection simply because it can not shed its fur during the summer.


they did not because god designed the dog to shed its fur because he knew that to much fur would cause the creature to be hot.


just like during the winter the dog grows more fur to keep warm


god knew that winter are cold and fur is warm so he used this knowledge and designed the dog to grow more fur during the winter.

this is proof that god was thinking.




Topic's author
#9
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
-->
@Ramshutu
if you feel that there is something i am not getting i am willing to stop talking about stuff like


"god knew that winter are cold and fur is warm so he used this knowledge and designed the dog to grow more fur during the winter.

this is proof that god was thinking."


to get past the misunderstanding but once the misunderstanding is understood. i will start talking about said thing again

#10
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@janesix
Actually no: if past history is anything to go by, the majority of objections to evolution are typified by exceptional ignorance or wilful intellectual dishonesty. Starting at the beginning is actually the only way to really highlight and expose either.
#11
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Ramshutu
Once again, you are pretentious and full of shit. It is in understanding evolution that we come to realize it is complete fabrication, impossibility, and nonsense. 
#12
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@crossed
Selective breeding is not evolution. 

But they rely on the same principles.

Children have properties of their parents, changing who breeds and by how much effects subsequent generations, you can control - to a degree - what genes get passed on and which don’t. 

That’s how we’ve gotten the massive and wide variety of selectively human bred dogs, horses, rabbits, plants.

Right? The principle behind both are the same.

#13
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@janesix
Erm no - given that what I’ve seen you’ve repeatedly misrepresented and misportrayed what evolution is and how it works in order to promote your unfalsifiable nonsense about randomness - and even now are just basically engaging in name calling - I don’t think you understand how evolution works at all, or you do and you are lying to make your conjecture sound more palatable.
#14
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Ramshutu
Fuck off. Of course I understand how evolution works. You are a pretentious asshole, and you think you are superior to any religious or spiritual person. You can go to hell .
#15
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@janesix
First of all, no you don’t; second of all I don’t believe I am superior to religious or spiritual people: just superior to people like you I matters of scientific understanding as it pertains to life, origins and evolution.

 I’ll give you a challenge to show whether you understand evolution or not with two questions:

1.) What types of differences would you encounter if you compared a whole genome vs a conserved gene sequence of two organisms, and why?

2.) If you compared conserved gene sequence between chickens, humans, lungfish, and sharks: how would they compare if evolution were true, and why?


#16
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Ramshutu
I don't know all the technical details, numbnuts, and neither do you . Go fuck yourself, pretentious asshole. 

#17
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@janesix
Thats not really a technical detail - it’s part of the core proof of evolution, and the key aspects of the evidence that supports it. 

And i I actually do, very much know a great deal of details about the mechanisms and details of evolution, which I would be happy to share (and I am trying to do so outside you telling me to fuck off and calif me pretentious!)

This is is what I mean about intellectual dishonesty - you claim to understand evolution, and have read about it - yet fail in explaining its basic mechanics.

How about I make it even simpler.

If you took a lungfish, a human and a shark living in the world today - which two would be more closely related, and why?

#18
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@janesix
@Ramshutu
THough well intended, Ramshutu, I think you're going to find this frustrating. The person who started this thread thinks evolution states owls would instantaneously develop night vision so that they could hunt at night (the I could live in a dark room for a million years paragraph). Starting at the beginning isn't going to help. He also says "limbs also usually consist of 4 legs or 2 arms and 2 legs. most life consist of those patterns except for a select few" which completely ignores how the most numerous types of sentient life on earth, insects and sea creatures, have neither two nor four legs. THat guy's posts are so dumb I have to wonder if he's actually serious, or if he's just trolling. It's all the same stuff: lack of understanding of big numbers, confusing 'randomness' with 'mutation' (herbivores and big teeth? what the fuck?), and hearing the word 'mutation' and thinking that means X Men.  

Jane, are you an exact copy of either of your parents? I mean do you look EXACTLY like your mom? Not really close. EXACTLY. Do you behave exactly as she does? 

#19
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@janesix
@Ramshutu
Double post deleted. 
#20
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ludofl3x
He could be serious, he could be trolling, it keeps me busy :)

#21
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@crossed
there should be millions of unsuccessful bones of failed animals. there should be as many failed animal bones as there are dinosaurs.

This is shocking...you say there should be millions of unsuccessful bones, then say, essentially, "there should be as many bones as we have found fossils." FOSSILS ARE BONES OF UNSUCCESSFUL ORGANISMS. For pete's sake! Do you even know how fossilization works? That not every organism in the history of life has a fossil?

Honestly, do you think fossilized remains captures the totality of all life that ever existed say up to the last 200,000 years? 
#22
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Of course we are different, we have different souls.
#23
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@janesix
Oh, okay, I can't argue with that. 

#24
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@janesix


If you took a lungfish, a human and a shark living in the world today - which two would be more closely related, and why?

Still waiting for your answer.
#25
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Ramshutu
I don't know how closely related any of them are, so i can't answer your question.
#26
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@janesix
@Ramshutu
I think he's asking you to guess which are most closely related based on just that info: human / shark / lungfish. Your reasoning is also important, like why you made the choice you did. He's not asking you to know, and I bet he won't even make fun of you if you get it wrong. Watch, I'll try:

Ramshutu, I think the lungfish and the shark are more closely related, because they're both fish and a human is not a fish. 
#27
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@janesix
I don't know how closely related any of them are, so i can't answer your question.
So you don’t know the key mechanics of Evolution, you can’t answer questions related to ancestry, meaning you don’t seem to know much about the broad specifics of it.

How about you list the three key properties a life form - or anything - requires in order to be able to evolve?



#28
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Ramshutu
There aren't three key things. Just a change in morphic fields.
#29
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ludofl3x
I think he's asking you to guess which are most closely related based on just that info: human / shark / lungfish. Your reasoning is also important, like why you made the choice you did. He's not asking you to know, and I bet he won't even make fun of you if you get it wrong. Watch, I'll try:

Ramshutu, I think the lungfish and the shark are more closely related, because they're both fish and a human is not a fish. 
I’m attempting to illustrate a point, many people can describe natural selection, and possibly genetic drift. Few people - and no one in the list of people I have interacted with who don’t believe in evolution - are able to accurately describe the details of the principles and their implications.

Your answer is a great example. Intuitively it seems that lungfish and sharks are closely related: but if you took a lungfish and a human - we are closer. That’s the type of nuance that gets missed, and nuance and understanding necessary to understand the data and experiments.

Humans and Lungfish share a later common ancestor than do sharks and lungfish (though not by much) that means there has been less time for humans and lungfish to diverge than between lungfish and sharks.

The points is actually a key nuance of evolution when talking about the leaves of a tree vs the branches; and an issue I’ve frequently seen misunderstood or misrepresented by the anti-science brigade.
#30
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@janesix
there are indeed three things: if any object has these three properties, it will evolve. Life, computer programs, rocks. Anything.

Going to make a stab at it? Because thus far for someone who understands evolution you don’t appear to be able to answer any questions on it.