Illuminati vs. Jesus [a debate about evolution]

[Tangent]

@elbows

I blame home schooling.

My guess is either home-schooling or a private christian school, and then a “bible college” where students actually take classes that teach them this YEC garbage.

That’s if the OP is in earnest. I suspect he’s not. DNFTT.

[Marley23]

@Tangent

That’s if the OP is in earnest. I suspect he’s not. DNFTT.

You can accuse other posters of trolling in the Pit, but not here. Please don’t do this again.

[Mangetout]

@DrFidelius

Another tack they take is to argue that what we perceive as “Design Flaws” are features, not bugs, and the Designer had perfectly cromulent reasons for doing things that way which *you *could see if *you *had Faith. The fact that we don’t all choke to death whenever we swallow is a Good Design, despite the epiglottis looking like a jury-rigged kludge.

Yes - that’s a favourite of the ID subset - we can distinguish ‘puposely designed’ from everything else, but we can’t distinguish between good and bad design, nor can we discern purpose

[XT]

I think in a cage match the Illuminati could take Jesus. Why? Well, Chuck Norris is a member of the Illuminati hit squad, that’s why, and they would surly pick him as one of their representatives. Even more scary…Mike Tyson is also a member, so Jesus better watch his ears!

(What’s the point in even trying to ‘debate’ someone like the OP on this or any other subject? It’s worse than debating some of the 9/11 Truthers, to be honest)

-XT

[simster]

@Marley23

Yes- they lose ground on every individual argument, but they make up for it on volume. Those of us who tried to argue with GEEPERS (just to name one) will find the strategy of constant topic changes very familiar.

are we sure we are not still arguing with the named one? This is all way to familiar - except for the “you’re picking on me” card has not been played (yet).

[42fish]

@Mangetout

In fact, refusal to stay on topic is the primary defensive weapon in the creationist toolbox.

Although amid all the swerving and inconsistency, it’s almost touching to see the OP’s devotion to his “whale leg bones are used in mating” claim, even if it’s 99.9% certain that it was the result of regurgitating a half-remembered creationist meme about the wrong critter.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Fear_Itself

That probably accounts for Isaiah 66:1:

@Ludovic

God supports the Ottomans?

The Ottomans support God. Well, his feet, anyway.

[coremelt]

@42fish

Although amid all the swerving and inconsistency, it’s almost touching to see the OP’s devotion to his “whale leg bones are used in mating” claim, even if it’s 99.9% certain that it was the result of regurgitating a half-remembered creationist meme about the wrong critter.

as far as I can tell pretty much all of reef sharks arguments are listed on this chest sheet. Except he got it wrong and it’s “hip bones” that they claim are anchor points for mating muscles in whales.

http://www.angelfire.com/planet/loveoneanothe//Text_on_Evolution.txt

Everything reef shark spewed is on there. I suspect it would be very easy to program an Eliza bot to spray out this stuff and it would do a better job at least keeping the fallacies straight.

[reef_shark]

@runner pat

Star formation has been observed.

We get better telescopes too.

[reef_shark]

@runner pat

Earliest land plants. 425 million years ago.

You really don’t have a clue how evolution works, do you?

New species/relationships, etc. don’t just appear fully formed. They evolve.

Whats that source?? See how those plants showed up as fully formed plants? Not like a half bacteria half plant? Is this so hard to see?

[reef_shark]

@Mangetout

Clams get buried by sediment in oceans today, then new clams inhabit the top layer, then those get buried, and so on.

A single, brief, catastrophic flood event could not create multiple layered fossil beds where each layer contains evidence of being a living ecosystem, yet this is what we find in sedimentary rocks.

It’s not just rocks with shells mixed in, it’s layer upon layer of sequential horizons, with evidence that each one persisted for a while before being buried - corals, crinoids, sponges, etc don’t spring up overnight.

Find some petrified clams and cite them then.

[reef_shark]

@iiandyiiii

Symbiotic relationships evolved together- as far as termites, bacteria were certainly around first, but the specific bacteria that lives inside termites evolved along with the termite- just like the bacteria that live inside us, or inside ruminants.

Look up what termites eat, and how they can eat it. They had to come simultaneously. Or else they wouldnt need each other.

[reef_shark]

@runner pat

Earliest land plants. 425 million years ago.

You really don’t have a clue how evolution works, do you?

New species/relationships, etc. don’t just appear fully formed. They evolve.

Did those plants need animals for fertilization or not?

[reef_shark]

@Latro

Seriously. I don’t mean to be offensive, but you really didn’t go to school, did you?

In the mean time, while we ponder this, could you ponder how evolution and natural selection could play a role in this.

You accept the idea of how one species can/could change over time, due to influences from the outside.
One of the influences could be another species. One species can adapt to another species. Or even both species adapt to each-other.

Not all relations are predator vs prey.

Unfortunately I went to a public school which taught me evolution as FACT. You accept natural selection as fact. But you have no explanation for the origin of these species. Adaptation and selection isnt CREATION.

[reef_shark]

@Smeghead

Holy shit. I’ve argued with a lot of creationists on the internet over the years, but you truly are one of the worst at arguing I’ve ever come across. THESE tired, hoary old arguments? Why not just go for the granddaddy of them all and ask why there are still monkeys around? These “arguments” are just about as old as the hills - however old you want to believe THAT is - and have been answered and debunked so many thousands of times that for anyone to still use them is clear proof of intellectual dishonesty. The answers are so common, and so freely available, that for anyone to pretend that they’re still valid questions is sheer, blatant denial of reality.

In other words, just about every creationist brings them up at one point or another.

Thanks for no input. Come with science next time.

[running_coach]

@reef_shark

Did those plants need animals for fertilization or not?

Other organic substances work just fine.

[reef_shark]

@iiandyiiii

We have fossils of feathered dinosaurs. How do you explain it?

You mean emus and ostriches? Or scales to feathers?

[reef_shark]

@Czarcasm

Do you know what happens when you use a microscope to look at the moon? It can’t give you the right results, because that isn’t what that particular tool was designed to do in the first place. Also, would you be so kind as to quit dodging this question:

How long ago do you think life began on this planet?

Asking yet other question is NOT a proper or respectful response-I think you’ve done enough questions for now, and it’s time for you to actually answer some. You seem to think that somehow disproving the fact of evolution means that Creationism must be correct, and it doesn’t, any more than showing that 2+3 doesn’t equal 7 is somehow proof that 5+1 does. It is now time for us to stop giving out all the long established evidence for evolution, and for you to finally step up to the plate and give any evidence you have for your theory of Creationism.

I repeat: It is now YOUR turn to give YOUR evidence for what YOU believe to be true.

And you keep repeating uselessly. Look at the textbooks. God isnt in them. Just the big bang and primordial soup. Theories as fact. Its really simple.

[reef_shark]

@Mangetout

And as a counterpoint (not sure if anyone else has already linked this in the thread):

TalkOrigins Index To Creationist Claims

reef shark - if you’ve got anything fresh to say that isn’t already answered in the above list, or you can properly refute any of the answers in the above list, let’s hear it.

Again, how did the plants that need animals for fertilization, wait millions of years for them???

[reef_shark]

@Fear_Itself

Fossils are not created by floods.

Thanks for your input. You are comparing your local creek flood to the genesis account. Not a surprise.