|
noticeofeviction
Roller


Registered: 02/06/10
Posts: 2,391
Loc: 818
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14331175 - 04/22/11 12:39 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Arguing with religious people
|
Samuel L Jackson
Bad Motherfucker


Registered: 12/10/09
Posts: 8,395
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: psilyguy]
#14331181 - 04/22/11 12:40 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psilyguy said: I don't like being too picky.
i already acknowledged the poor word choice
--------------------
|
donteatasians


Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1,461
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14331189 - 04/22/11 12:44 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
donteatasians said: When people started migrating to areas with less sun, into Europe and Asia, they developed lighter skin to better take advantage of the sun. Vitamin D for one comes to mind. They also didn't need as much protection from the harmful aspects of sun like sunburn.
are you saying that black people dont need vitamin D?
No, I'm just saying that Africa got more intense light that provided what they needed. At latitudes farther north they received less intense light and the skin adapted by getting lighter to make up for the difference. As far as I know it's only a theory but is the only explanation I've come across other than coming from two different ancestors.
--------------------
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: noticeofeviction]
#14331196 - 04/22/11 12:47 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
noticeofeviction said: Arguing with religious people 
at least someone gets my point
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: donteatasians]
#14331207 - 04/22/11 12:49 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
donteatasians said: As far as I know it's only a theory
there's a theory that every living thing has a single common ancestor as well, it's just a theory because they've yet to figure out how a few minerals got together and mated with an amino acid and spontaneously generated life
|
psilyguy


Registered: 12/03/08
Posts: 3,305
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Samuel L Jackson]
#14331208 - 04/22/11 12:49 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SamuelLJackson said:
Quote:
psilyguy said: I don't like being too picky.
i already acknowledged the poor word choice
Sorry I missed that. Anyway maybe some of the people who don't understand evolution will see the difference now.
Anyone here think evolution is total BS? If so are you not familiar with the logic of evolution theory or do you understand the logic and deny it? If you understand it then what is your reason for denying it?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14331211 - 04/22/11 12:51 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psilyguy said: Anyone here think evolution is total BS? If so are you not familiar with the logic of evolution theory or do you understand the logic and deny it? If you understand it then what is your reason for denying it?
care to explain abiogenesis?
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
donteatasians said: As far as I know it's only a theory
there's a theory that every living thing has a single common ancestor as well, it's just a theory because they've yet to figure out how a few minerals got together and mated with an amino acid and spontaneously generated life
|
donteatasians


Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1,461
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Bodhi of Ankou]
#14331213 - 04/22/11 12:52 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Bodhi of Ankou said: Well for one interbreeding between species is impossible and again why would perfect genes ever evolve or change at all.
I don't think this is entirely correct. Lion and Tigers can be interbred.
Link
--------------------
Edited by donteatasians (04/22/11 12:54 AM)
|
Bodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*



Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: donteatasians]
#14331215 - 04/22/11 12:53 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
They can but the offspring is always sterile.
|
Larrythescaryrex
teardrop on the fire



Registered: 07/19/00
Posts: 11,004
Loc: further down the spiral
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Bodhi of Ankou]
#14331224 - 04/22/11 12:54 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
maybe if they used rattlesnake venom to weaken the cell walls?
-------------------- RIP Acidic_Sloth Sunset_Mission said: "larry the scary rex verily scary when thoroughly vexed invoke the shadows and dust, cast a hex mercifully massacring memories masterfully relocate from Ur to 8th density and become a cosmic bully mulder and scully couldn't decipher his glyphs invoke the shadows and dust, smoke infernal spliffs" April 24th 2011
|
Samuel L Jackson
Bad Motherfucker


Registered: 12/10/09
Posts: 8,395
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14331236 - 04/22/11 12:56 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
donteatasians said: As far as I know it's only a theory
there's a theory that every living thing has a single common ancestor as well, it's just a theory because they've yet to figure out how a few minerals got together and mated with an amino acid and spontaneously generated life
actually theres been experiments where lipid-bilayers (see also: inanimate clusters of phospholipids) spontaneously divide and form smaller bubbles.
theyve created amino acids and other bio-molecules in that one experiment.
get everything right and shit can happen.
maybe theres a reason it took billions of years for it to happen once and make one cell. which proceeded to divide and experience alterations in its DNA.
why would people be able to recreate the production of life in a lab if it took ~2billion years to happen on earth, which was basically a seething pot of organic molecules for a loooooooooooong time.
if life is ever recreated (technically, it has been, read up on the synthetic organism craig venter created) from scratch it will take a loooooooooooooooooooong time.
--------------------
|
donteatasians


Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1,461
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14331247 - 04/22/11 01:00 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
psilyguy said: Anyone here think evolution is total BS? If so are you not familiar with the logic of evolution theory or do you understand the logic and deny it? If you understand it then what is your reason for denying it?
care to explain abiogenesis?
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
donteatasians said: As far as I know it's only a theory
there's a theory that every living thing has a single common ancestor as well, it's just a theory because they've yet to figure out how a few minerals got together and mated with an amino acid and spontaneously generated life
Supposedly people from the Malaysia (I think?) area sailed to Australia after reaching that area. If this is true I have no idea how they knew it was there or got that lucky.
--------------------
|
Samuel L Jackson
Bad Motherfucker


Registered: 12/10/09
Posts: 8,395
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: donteatasians]
#14331252 - 04/22/11 01:01 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
abiogenesis not aboriginals
--------------------
|
Bodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*



Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Samuel L Jackson]
#14331257 - 04/22/11 01:01 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Even that theory is kinda..ummm, iffy. So spontaneously the first strand of DNA is created, then what? Its just a strand of DNa floating around in the ocean current, no cell wall, no mitochondria, no way to power its self to replicate into more strands. at all, nevermind evolve into anything.
|
Larrythescaryrex
teardrop on the fire



Registered: 07/19/00
Posts: 11,004
Loc: further down the spiral
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Bodhi of Ankou]
#14331260 - 04/22/11 01:02 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
no rna to do the replicating....
-------------------- RIP Acidic_Sloth Sunset_Mission said: "larry the scary rex verily scary when thoroughly vexed invoke the shadows and dust, cast a hex mercifully massacring memories masterfully relocate from Ur to 8th density and become a cosmic bully mulder and scully couldn't decipher his glyphs invoke the shadows and dust, smoke infernal spliffs" April 24th 2011
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Samuel L Jackson]
#14331266 - 04/22/11 01:03 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SamuelLJackson said: why would people be able to recreate the production of life in a lab if it took ~2billion years to happen on earth, which was basically a seething pot of organic molecules for a loooooooooooong time.
but they havent created life in a lab, they've altered a virus and called it the creation of life, at least that's how it was reported to the public
|
donteatasians


Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1,461
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Samuel L Jackson]
#14331281 - 04/22/11 01:08 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SamuelLJackson said: abiogenesis not aboriginals 

PS For the record I'm not posting with the intention of attacking the idea of God. I don't really see any conflict. If God created life it follows that God also created the rules that govern its processes and how things to develop. I just wanted to throw in what my understanding was on the whole “monkey to people” issue, since that’s not really what the theory of evolution proposes. That’s a major simplification of the idea.
--------------------
Edited by donteatasians (04/22/11 01:10 AM)
|
psilyguy


Registered: 12/03/08
Posts: 3,305
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: psilyguy]
#14331294 - 04/22/11 01:12 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Here's my favorite argument, I use this famous quote from some guy named Epicurus. For the religious people, ignore the fact that its a quote and just think through the logic.
Quote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
You can have Omnipotence and Benevolence, but then God didn't create evil and God would prevent evil. Or you can have evil exist and only one of the God-like traits. If thats the case, what makes the guy worthy of worship? A truly benevolent being is worthy of being a role-model, but is not a God. An omnipotent being that is not benevolent is a super-monster/devil/scary thing.
If you believe in predestiny determined by God. Then that means God is directly responsible for all genocide, sexual assault, torture, misery, sadness, illness, etc. If this is the case I say God is the biggest asshole ever.
I know the Mormons and probably some other religious groups would argue that God is able but not willing to prevent evil for the cause of free will (which also means God created evil to provide the choice, since God created all that is, including Satan). But if that is true then God would never interfere, especially not in the form of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah simply for being full of "evil-doers"(for example, plenty of other examples out there). Because God interfering at all would make true free-will impossible.
If anyone who believes in any of the worship-type gods (christians, muslims, jewish people, etc.) can break this logic and explain to me how a God worth worshiping can even exist, then speak up.
|
Samuel L Jackson
Bad Motherfucker


Registered: 12/10/09
Posts: 8,395
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: Prisoner#1]
#14331299 - 04/22/11 01:15 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
SamuelLJackson said: why would people be able to recreate the production of life in a lab if it took ~2billion years to happen on earth, which was basically a seething pot of organic molecules for a loooooooooooong time.
but they havent created life in a lab, they've altered a virus and called it the creation of life, at least that's how it was reported to the public
you should totally look into that experiment a little more.
im not saying that created life from scratch. but they did create a unique organism.
it was much more than an altered virus. viruses arent even living organisms.
--------------------
|
Larrythescaryrex
teardrop on the fire



Registered: 07/19/00
Posts: 11,004
Loc: further down the spiral
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Arguments to destroy a religious person in a debate? [Re: psilyguy]
#14331304 - 04/22/11 01:16 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
god gave freewill to. stopping evil would negate that. also people say things are evil that arn't like earthquakes or something.
-------------------- RIP Acidic_Sloth Sunset_Mission said: "larry the scary rex verily scary when thoroughly vexed invoke the shadows and dust, cast a hex mercifully massacring memories masterfully relocate from Ur to 8th density and become a cosmic bully mulder and scully couldn't decipher his glyphs invoke the shadows and dust, smoke infernal spliffs" April 24th 2011
|
|