Oh I passed Comparative Anatomy. It never revealed if some of the sharks gill arches became part of the middle ears hammer, anvil and stirrup at the same time the shark coincidently developed salamander legs to advance itself enough to travel on or in land. I would think being able to swim and eat stuff in the ocean would be preferable.
Iirc, didnt a couple of shark gill arches become mans jaw bone or mandible? Where the hell did the sharks jaw bone go?
Wow! Sorry man, but you are thoroughly confused on this subject. You've clearly never actually studied biology, or any of the related fields. This stuff is all available for anyone who's authentically curious.
For starters, watch the series I provided on this thread.
In other threads, I have said why I have chosen my specific God. To reiterate it now will just prolong the agony of this so-called conversation; anyway, it did not satisfy you then and it won't now.
But there you go again, demanding that I only must meet a burden of proof. You are also making a positive claim, about evolution, so you still have a burden of truth as much as I do. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has been scrutinized for 150 years, true, but that doesn't mean it has withstood all scrutiny. Here I am, neither a biblical scholar or a scientist, and I came up with an idea that renders it inconclusive, and all you can do is blather on about a "trickster god." And talk about moving the goal posts, introducing the Flat earth Movement into this is typical of your disingenuousness.
Now your counter is likely to be that my interpretation requires a God you do not accept as being real, you gotta prove it, blah, blah, blah. And back and forth we go, over and over and over again. I'm out.
The biggest problem our country has is not systemic racism, it's systemic stupidity.
In other threads, I have said why I have chosen my specific God. To reiterate it now will just prolong the agony of this so-called conversation; anyway, it did not satisfy you then and it won't now.
But there you go again, demanding that I only must meet a burden of proof. You are also making a positive claim, about evolution, so you still have a burden of truth as much as I do. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has been scrutinized for 150 years, true, but that doesn't mean it has withstood all scrutiny. Here I am, neither a biblical scholar or a scientist, and I came up with an idea that renders it inconclusive, and all you can do is blather on about a "trickster god." And talk about moving the goal posts, introducing the Flat earth Movement into this is typical of your disingenuousness.
Now your counter is likely to be that my interpretation requires a God you do not accept as being real, you gotta prove it, blah, blah, blah. And back and forth we go, over and over and over again. I'm out.
Well, DUH!!
You are claiming your God created the Universe Young to appear old. The time to believe that is when there's sufficient evidence for it. Just because you have an idea that's unsupported by evidence, that does not wipe away all the existing evidence for evolution. You presented an alternative idea. The Null Hypothesis is that the Universe was not created young to appear old by your God. If you wish to over come the Null, then by all means, present away!!!!
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 06/24/20.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Oh I passed Comparative Anatomy. It never revealed if some of the sharks gill arches became part of the middle ears hammer, anvil and stirrup at the same time the shark coincidently developed salamander legs to advance itself enough to travel on or in land. I would think being able to swim and eat stuff in the ocean would be preferable.
Iirc, didnt a couple of shark gill arches become mans jaw bone or mandible? Where the hell did the sharks jaw bone go?
Where to begin?
Sharks are not ancestral to salamanders. Salamanders evolved from lobe finned fishes, not sharks, and we have many many missing links between the two.
BTW: You evolved from lobe finned fishes too.
And sharks don't have jaw bones. They have cartilage. Duh!! So much for any anatomy you may have tried to study.
What a loon!
PS: Why does your god have wisdom teeth? Do they have dentists in heaven?
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
... If you want to play the "everything exists until proven otherwise" game, well, you have 10,000 other gods to disprove before you can claim yours is the One True God. .
more than a mere stumbling block...😂
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
Starman: See John 3:16. "...the world..." and "...whosoever..." seems to me would encompass more than the Torah Jews, as you term them. .
Scholars, pastors and even versions of Bible differ as to whether 3:16 is attributed to Jesus vs John. Some take 3:16 as Jesus speaking in the 3rd person, indicating it is simply commentary by the author of John about Jesus.
is there verse where learned Christians undisputedly agree that Jesus himself directly said he wanted his disciples to preach to all of humanity?
to my knowledge, James and Peter did not agree with Paul or anyone taking the preaching to those not compliant to Hebrew O.T. law observances. >>Why would James and Peter take such a stance if JC instructed them otherwise?
John is also unique in that its not considered among the Synoptic Gospels [ie:] it does not present a common view like Matthew, Mark and Luke.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
Starman: See John 3:16. "...the world..." and "...whosoever..." seems to me would encompass more than the Torah Jews, as you term them.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
....Since you claim my God is fictitious, it is every bit as incumbent on you to present sufficient evidence for his non-existence, ….
You know that is incorrect - that would mean that you could say absolutely anything about anyone and get them to prove otherwise. That would be guilty until proven innocent. Good for killing witches though.
This is not a trial; if it were, who is the prosecution and who is the defendant? No, it is supposed to be a conversation, albeit one where each side hopes to persuade the other of the merits of its viewpoint. There is no guilt or innocence involved here; thus my point was that AS does not have the sole right to demand sufficient evidence of anything anymore than I do.
There is compelling evidence for evolution. I offered an interpretation of that evidence that renders said evidence insufficient. I have conceded that neither position is provable, yet AS and you continue to demand "sufficient evidence" while exempting yourselves from the same standard. I don't care to continue to attempt to carry on a conversation in this manner.
I was really hoping I could just let this thread die...hopefully, it is over for me now.
The evidence, fossil, strata, genetic, molecular, common descent, etc, if considered objectively and understood, leaves no doubt about the reality of natural evolution.
The following is a question from the University of Arizona's chemistry mid-term exam, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by this student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being; which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+
For those without thumbs, it's s Garden fookin Island, not Hawaii
The old daddy Hebrew O.T. hell ("sheol") is not a firey place like the later christian and Talmud jew fabrication.
Sunday school Kooks mistake (and Bible babbling con artists misrepresent) hell as the Lake of Fire🔥
The orig. O.T. word of God has sheol being a restful temporary place, where captive souls know of nothing.
Now to the science; There will be a mass release of all souls for the final judgement, which would greatly reduce the pressure and heat in a Hypothetical burning hell model... involving rapid and extraordinary heat transfer from hell to atmosphere.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
Starman: See John 3:16. "...the world..." and "...whosoever..." seems to me would encompass more than the Torah Jews, as you term them.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
....Since you claim my God is fictitious, it is every bit as incumbent on you to present sufficient evidence for his non-existence, ….
You know that is incorrect - that would mean that you could say absolutely anything about anyone and get them to prove otherwise. That would be guilty until proven innocent. Good for killing witches though.
This is not a trial; if it were, who is the prosecution and who is the defendant? No, it is supposed to be a conversation, albeit one where each side hopes to persuade the other of the merits of its viewpoint. There is no guilt or innocence involved here; thus my point was that AS does not have the sole right to demand sufficient evidence of anything anymore than I do.
There is compelling evidence for evolution. I offered an interpretation of that evidence that renders said evidence insufficient. I have conceded that neither position is provable, yet AS and you continue to demand "sufficient evidence" while exempting yourselves from the same standard. I don't care to continue to attempt to carry on a conversation in this manner.
I was really hoping I could just let this thread die...hopefully, it is over for me now.
The evidence, fossil, strata, genetic, molecular, common descent, etc, if considered objectively and understood, leaves no doubt about the reality of natural evolution.
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
The following is a question from the University of Arizona's chemistry mid-term exam, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by this student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being; which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+
That's a great internet meme.
Can you provide any evidence it actually happened, such as the name of the institution, student, and grader?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really?
And how is that?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really? And how is that?
AS, debating with an adamant non-believer in evolution is just as fruitless as debating with an adamant non-believer in God. 😄
The following is a question from the University of Arizona's chemistry mid-term exam, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by this student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being; which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+
That's a great internet meme.
Can you provide any evidence it actually happened, such as the name of the institution, student, and grader?
Ok. I confess.
Ecc 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but that of a fool to the left.
A Nation which leaves God behind is soon left behind.
"The Lord never asked anyone to be a tax collector, lowyer, or Redskins fan".
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really? And how is that?
AS, debating with an adamant non-believer in evolution is just as fruitless as debating with an adamant non-believer in God. 😄
IDK, debating believers had bore much fruit for me. Many are very good, like minded men who just happen to disagree with me on a single proposition. Despite this disagreement, we often come to the same solutions for the real problems facing us today. Ultimately, that's what these discussion are about. What matters regarding the real problems of today.
At a practical level, I have way more in common with you than any Marxist how also happens to be an atheist.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Actually, considered in toto, such evidence shows that the standard (neo-darwinian) model cannot possibly be true. Its adherents cling to it out of religious necessity, not because it is empirically defensible.
Oh really? And how is that?
AS, debating with an adamant non-believer in evolution is just as fruitless as debating with an adamant non-believer in God. 😄
IDK, debating believers had bore much fruit for me. Many are very good, like minded men who just happen to disagree with me on a single proposition. Despite this disagreement, we often come to the same solutions for the real problems facing us today. Ultimately, that's what these discussion are about. What matters regarding the real problems of today. At a practical level, I have way more in common with you than any Marxist who also happens to be an atheist.
Well, if I had an opportunity to ‘see’ the risen Jesus ‘before’ I passed on...I’d be SO there. And I’m certain that ‘anyone’ who comes to him will ‘not’ be turned away.
