Conquer Club

Lionz wrote:BBQ,

What if Darwin had one or more right idea and yet stretched things too far? What if various kinds of creatures were created and they naturally bring forth variety after their kinds?

Maybe.
For instance, do you mean, that, God created the heavens and earth, etc. Then once the conditions were right, and the correct elements were assembled, he gave them a little "kick start" and provided the spark of life, turning a bunch of carbon and hydrogen atoms into an amoeba, which then went on to evolve on its own?

I guess that's at least as plausable as robots killing the elderly.

Frigidus wrote:pimpdave,

What if the heart isn't actually essential for pumping blood? What if people dying following heart attacks is just a long string of unlikely coincidences?

Well if you think of it, dying of a heart attack IS just a long string of unlikely coincidences.

Edit: that is, unless you think that existence is predetermined.

Lionz,

Have you ever considered that maybe the Bible was the first hit fantasy serial, and that it was never meant to be taken literally?

Frigidus wrote:Lionz,

Have you ever considered that maybe the Bible was the first hit fantasy serial, and that it was never meant to be taken literally?

the movie was way better, btw

People take the bible literally because they can't find any text between the lines.

Perhaps someone needs to write "The Bible for Dummies and the Gullible"

Lionz wrote:What suggests to you that elephants and sunflowers share common ancestry?

Well, I saw an elephant called "Daisy" once.

BBQ,

There might have been some misunderstanding. What if He created various kinds of living creatures out of non-living material? And the kinds have brought forth variety since then? What if zebras share common ancestry with horses and yet not with bumble bees?

Frigidus,

Are you not really referring to a collection of 66 or more works that were written centuries and centuries apart by 40 or more individuals? If so, did the 40 or more make up a grand fantasy together centuries apart with all of them intending to be telling fantasy?

I keep having deja vu.

Lions, get some new arguments/points and come back

What suggest to you that lionz and a sapient being have anything in common?

Do you refer to an argument or point that's been refuted?

Lionz wrote:Frigidus,

Are you not really referring to a collection of 66 or more works that were written centuries and centuries apart by 40 or more individuals? If so, did the 40 or more make up a grand fantasy together centuries apart with all of them intending to be telling fantasy?

Lionz,

Is it not possible that the works following the original author's fantasy epic inspired multiple tributes to the original, sort of like how Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert expanded on the Dune series, and that the New Testament was a compilation of fan fiction (hence the radically different tone)?

How serious are you being?

bbqpenguin wrote:

Lionz wrote:BBQ,

What if Darwin had one or more right idea and yet stretched things too far? What if various kinds of creatures were created and they naturally bring forth variety after their kinds?

Maybe.
For instance, do you mean, that, God created the heavens and earth, etc. Then once the conditions were right, and the correct elements were assembled, he gave them a little "kick start" and provided the spark of life, turning a bunch of carbon and hydrogen atoms into an amoeba, which then went on to evolve on its own?

I guess that's at least as plausable as robots killing the elderly.

I didn't want to get into this jackass arguement. Darwin's theories explain how a species evolves quite well. However, they are quite lacking in regards to explaining how a NEW species manifests itself. Based on what we now know about DNA, if you buy into Darwin's ideas 100%, DNA itself would have to practice natural selection, in other words, a member of one species would have to be sexually attracted to another species because of a mutation within it's DNA that the naked eye can't see yet but will someday, 1000 years? 10000years? will mutate into something radically differant that benefits that new species and encourages it to survive.

Lionz wrote:How serious are you being?

I have never been this serious in my entire life.

Where would Josephus and Antiquities of the Jews fit in? And how many died as Christian martyrs even in the first century?

Lionz wrote:Where would Josephus and Antiquities of the Jews fit in? And how many died as Christian martyrs even in the first century?

Lionz- you would do better if you took this 30 plus page thread and distilled it. Start a new thread with that.

1) What have you conceded from this thread? Which arguments presented by you were wrong?

2) Which arguments do you feel need to go on? Where are you unsure?

3) On which points are you firm? Where do you feel that you can't be persuaded?

Distill your points- they are a mess of counter-arguments. What is your basic stand? Argue that. Make it clear.

Yoda Skywalker wrote:

bbqpenguin wrote:

Lionz wrote:BBQ,

What if Darwin had one or more right idea and yet stretched things too far? What if various kinds of creatures were created and they naturally bring forth variety after their kinds?

Maybe.
For instance, do you mean, that, God created the heavens and earth, etc. Then once the conditions were right, and the correct elements were assembled, he gave them a little "kick start" and provided the spark of life, turning a bunch of carbon and hydrogen atoms into an amoeba, which then went on to evolve on its own?

I guess that's at least as plausable as robots killing the elderly.

I didn't want to get into this jackass arguement. Darwin's theories explain how a species evolves quite well. However, they are quite lacking in regards to explaining how a NEW species manifests itself. Based on what we now know about DNA, if you buy into Darwin's ideas 100%, DNA itself would have to practice natural selection, in other words, a member of one species would have to be sexually attracted to another species because of a mutation within it's DNA that the naked eye can't see yet but will someday, 1000 years? 10000years? will mutate into something radically differant that benefits that new species and encourages it to survive.

For more, read The Selfish Gene.

Symmetry,

There's been stuff said in here that I've forgotten about and you ask questions I'm not sure of perfect answers to maybe, but where do I stand? This might be able to help you understand where I'm coming from.

What if there's a Creator of the heavens and the earth? And the Creator created various kinds of creatures who have naturally brought forth variety after their kinds? And certain angels rebelled against the Creator and came to earth and taught things to mankind that helped lead to increased violence and sexual immorality? And there was a global flood less than 4,500 years ago that helped clean earth to an extent? And yet there are rebellious angels influencing things on earth even now and people are being deceived about where things have come from?

I've got a forum blog here that can help you better understand where I'm coming from maybe... http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/sh ... hp?t=64447

Lionz wrote:Symmetry,

There's been stuff said in here that I've forgotten about and you ask questions I'm not sure of perfect answers to maybe, but where do I stand? This might be able to help you understand where I'm coming from.

What if there's a Creator of the heavens and the earth? And the Creator created various kinds of creatures who have naturally brought forth variety after their kinds? And certain angels rebelled against the Creator and came to earth and taught things to mankind that helped lead to increased violence and sexual immorality? And there was a global flood less than 4,500 years ago that helped clean earth to an extent? And yet there are rebellious angels influencing things on earth even now and people are being decieved about where things have come from?

Well this is what I wanted to say- if you want proof, say so, If the foundations of your belief is faith and no proof is required, say so.

I have a huge amount of respect for people who believe, and I'm not included in that group. I tend to disrespect people who downplay faith in favour of proof. I don't like your arguments, or the arguments against your arguments.

You need to clarify where you stand. Doing anything else will result in another page long essay that doesn't touch o what you believe.

The reason I posted those points was that I feel frustrated reading the posts and counter posts.

1) What have you accepted as wrong? This goes to the heart of the thread. Have you been wrong? You've argued faith from a scientific standpoint, and you should start anew by acknowledging where your arguments were wrong.

2) What do you think is still up for debate? Are you really just restating the same points you had from start to finish? Have new points come up?

3) What is off the table? What are your core beliefs? What isn't up for discussion?

If everything falls under point 3, then there's no point in talking.

If someone claims something and it seems to me to be built on faulty logic, what do you suggest I do whether you think I've downplayed faith or not?

I'm not sure where I've been wrong perhaps. I misused one or more word and received some faulty information having to do with the Colorado River delta possibly, but what have I adamantly claimed as true even if that's the case?

What's not up for debate and have new points come up and what's off the table and what isn't up for discussion? You've asked a number of things that comes down to definition perhaps. You should already have a general idea about what I believe maybe, but do you want to know what I believe about something specific? What would you like to discuss?

How bout we always speak in questions and never answer anything? Wouldn't this way be more entertaining for everyone? Surely, there are many fine points made by Neotony against Lionz, but let's just ignore them, right? As long as one keeps re-asking the same questions and not reading anything that's said, then wouldn't one feel infallible?

What have I ignored? Irony is alive and well on conquerclub.com perhaps.

Lionz wrote:What have I ignored? Irony is alive and well on conquerclub.com perhaps.

Why do ask the same questions over and over again? Granted, you do come up with something bordering original in relation to the first block of your questions, right?

Question?