Galileo

Joined

• started 7 topics
• posted 401 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Galileo

• 
  44

  How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).

  please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.

  i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Galileo

  You make a good point. I think a good example is "abiogenesis". They say it is not important, but they do need show how evolution started.

  The vast majority of those that accept the theory of evolution, including the pope, don't believe in abiogenesis. Abiogenesis may or may not have happened. The difference between science and religious dogma is that science has no problem admitting where the data is lacking and adapting to better data or a more complete explanation. We have a powerful theory of how life evolves, complete with massive fossil evidence showing transitions, DNA showing gradual change, ERV insertions proving common descent, etc. etc.

  We have no hard evidence for abiogenesis. We have hypotheses and some lab experiments showing some possibilities, but it is nowhere near the level of a scientific theory, and so what? It is possible that we will never be able to prove abiogenesis, and so what? Are creationists bringing a theory to the table? Even a better hypothesis? No. There is no evidence for creation. Creation is not a better model. If evolution were a religion, than scientists would take the religionists' shortcut, and say that the first organisms were always in existence, as creationists claim for god. Evidence be damned. But they don't. They say we don't know, because we don't. And neither do you.
• 
  44

  How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).

  please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.

  i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Galileo

  Hooberus, you highlighted the wrong sentence:

  And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the Catarrhine or Old World stock

  That's from your own Darwin quote. It's saying that the common ancestor is a monkey only in as much as we are still monkeys. Your point here is largely semantics, and I don't really understand why you feel that insisting on this point makes your argument stronger. Perhaps you could explain how, from the point of a debate, winning this point will put you at an advantage.
• 
  44

  How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).

  please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.

  i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Galileo

  and why doesn't the common ancester still exist?

  The same reason 99.9% of all life forms that have ever existed are now extinct.
• 
  44

  How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).

  please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.

  i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Galileo

  The alleged common ancestor of humans and modern apes was even more "primitive" than the modern apes which supposedly descended from it. Therefore what (non-modern ape) specific "traits similar to modern humans" could such a creature have possessed?

  As per your stated reason for this thread, I'm not going to debate this point. I was merely trying to help you form the best argument you could. If you want to waste your time continuing to argue a point on which you are factually incorrect, be my guest. If you want to debate this specific point, then one of the multitude of other threads on evolutin would probably be a better place to do it.
• 
  44

  How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).

  please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.

  i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Galileo

  Evolution doesn't teach that people came from apes!

  I understand your desire for this to be a debate tutorial and not a debate thread in itself, so let me just correct you on this. Evolution doesn't teach that people came from apes. Trying to argue this point with an evolutionist will immediately show you as someone that is ignorant of the subject. If you wnat to use the terminology "ancient apes" this might not be objectionable, so long as you're clear on what that means. Evolutionary theory teaches that in the distant past, humans and modern great apes had a common ancestor that shared some traits similar to modern apes and some traits similar to modern humans. Saying that humans descended from apes is akin to saying that you descended from me, since at some point we both had a common ancestor. It is simply factually wrong.
• 
  35

  I cannot "unprove" every single wild-side 911 theory...

  by james_woods in

  1. social
  2. current

  here is what i received this morning from an enthusiast.... james-woods, do you remember leoleoia (wrong spelling) whom you supported vehemently on this subject?

  i've been waiting for her comments, and, still waiting.

  as for you, you've taken the course of least resistance, you decided to ignore me and not address the issue.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Galileo

  Glad to see this thread. I got tired of debating unreasonable people so I stopped even looking at the 911 threads when I saw three separate threads (started by the same crackpot) on one page here. I don't really have anything to add, I agree with what's been said.
• 
  57

  Proof, proof, gimme some proof!!!

  by Slappy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheists clamor for proof of godas existence.

  give us hard, physical proof they say, and then weall believe.

  if evolution truly happened, how did that one apersona that evolved from monkeys learn to speak and write?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Galileo

  I think there's allot more to the evolution theory than just man from monkey belief that makes it impossible for me to believe . We'll start with the big bang and go through how the universe slows down enough to reform but yet continues to expand and then all the countless collisions that happened to form planets from asteroids and then some how amino acids become biological life forms after falling in earths oceans ..... sorry not buying it.........

  Again, this is not evolution. Just go ahead and say you reject all science and be done with it.
• 
  57

  Proof, proof, gimme some proof!!!

  by Slappy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheists clamor for proof of godas existence.

  give us hard, physical proof they say, and then weall believe.

  if evolution truly happened, how did that one apersona that evolved from monkeys learn to speak and write?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Galileo

  "life came from life"

  As besty said, this doesn't have anything to do with evolution, but I wanted to comment on it anyway since Creationists often use this misleading language as if they have some sort of point. They will say that life has only been observed or known to come from life, which is true but an incomplete statement. The fact is that amongst the higher animals, life only has been observed to come from life through sexual reproduction. A few lower life forms can reproduce asexually. But this is still a far cry from ever witnessing a life form of any sort creating an entirely new and unrelated form of life with his hands or through a magic spirit. "Life only comes from life" no more supports your idea that an invisible magic giant created all life than it supports abiogenesis. So unless your idea is that God had sex with the earth and impregnated it with all life forms, you can shut up about that one.
• 
  28

  ADAM HAD 8 PIGMENTION GENES IN HIS CELLS!

  by badboy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i understand that someone once asked why if adam was the first human,where all the different human skin colours come from, so the jw said that adam had 8 different pigmentions in his cells.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Galileo

  And that scripture is...?
• 
  57

  Proof, proof, gimme some proof!!!

  by Slappy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheists clamor for proof of godas existence.

  give us hard, physical proof they say, and then weall believe.

  if evolution truly happened, how did that one apersona that evolved from monkeys learn to speak and write?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Galileo

  I believe this can apply in the reverse also, no? A non-believer asking for proof when his/her mind is already made up about the non-existence of God.

  The difference is that we weren't born non-believers. Almost everyone carries a belief system very similar to their parents. Muslems tend to stay Muslems. Mormons tend to stay Mormons. Hindus tend to stay Hindus, etc. It is the rare person that can examine their belief system and find it flawed. You are a Christian, and you were raised a Christian, albeit a different denomination. That doesn't mean that it is impossible that your belief system is correct, but it does mean that someones opinion that has examined their belief and disagreed with it carries more weight. That person's belief system is not based on the blind luck of the philosophy they were raised with.

  If you were born an Aztec you would believe fervently in the snake god Quetzalcoatl. If you were born a Viking you would believe in Thor. If you were born in Afghanistan you would pray to Allah five times a day. You could use your rational for believing in the Christian god to believe in these as well. The same could not be said for me, nor for many others on this board. We have rejected the superstitions we were born into. My mind is not made up about the non-existence of god. If evidence could be produced for his existence, I could be persuaded to believe. I simply refuse to believe in anything for which there is no evidence. That is why I reject Quetzacoatl, Thor, Allah, and Jehovah alike. There is no difference in evidence for believing one over the others. There is only the accident of birth.