Jump to content


Photo

All Your Questions Answered


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
102 replies to this topic

#81 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 18 September 2010 - 06:36 PM

Actually it did.  If what you say is true, then insects resembling leaves wouldn't exist... but they do.  These are obviously not learned behaviours, but genetic traits.

You may need to read up a bit more on Biology.

View Post



The question was mimicing behaviour, which I understood to mean copying the behaviour of a parent or other species member. The use of camouflage is indeed genetic, confering a survival and hence breeding benefit.

#82 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 18 September 2010 - 06:44 PM

Sorry I can't help but ask this when does 1+1=10? :lol:

View Post



err........binary.

have I fallen into a trap?

#83 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 18 September 2010 - 07:01 PM

Secondly – it is an historically incorrect statement.
The Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew (First hand eye witness).
The Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John (First hand eye witness).
The Gospel of Mark was dictated by the Apostle Peter (First hand eye witness) to John-Mark (who may have been a First hand eye witness).
The Gospel of Luke was written by Luke interviewing (or writing down the testimonies) of first hand eye witnesses. 

So basically, you're just equivocating, trolling, wasting time and spreading misinformation here.

View Post



Actually there are no originals of any of the gospels in existance. The copies that do exist were made two or three generations after the death of Jesus of Nazareth.
A committee of christians met some hundreds of years after the death of Jesus and decided which writings and including copies of gospels should be included in the bible.

Even if we accept the copies as true copies they were all written some years or decades after the death of Jesus, by people with a vested interest in perpetuating their story. They claim to remember word for word all of the important statements/teachings made by Jesus even after this length of time.

Modern Christians now also tend to believe that these copies of writings made by people with questionable motives and 100% accurate.

Now consider the number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the gospels (not to mention the rest of the bible) and it is very difficult to understand why anyone would believe a single word of it.

#84 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 18 September 2010 - 07:07 PM

That is just plain rude. To me. I suggest that you edit. Personally, I try not to be offensive.

I cannot figure out how to multi-quote. I think I am doing it and then they don't show up. Ugh!

So just because a feature confers a survival benefit we assume that evolution brought it about?

How do the peacock's feathers help them to survive? (Watch out! It is a trick question.)

And how again does a feature pass on to offspring? We have many, many generations of sheep and dogs that still have long tails that are not needed. You would think that they would be whales by now. :lol: What about tribes who elongate their necks? Why do they need to continue body modifications? Shouldn't subsequent generations be born with long necks? It worked for giraffes by just stretching didn't it?

#85 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 18 September 2010 - 07:47 PM

Hmm... I have no idea, the mystery may never be solved!!!  :lol:

View Post



binary is the answer. but really I was just having fun. I figured a little humor doesn't hurt the conversation.

binary counting goes like this
0 = 0
1 = 1
10 = 2
11 = 3
100 = 4
101 = 5
110 = 6
111 = 7
1000 = 8
etc.

Its quite interesting because you can use binary to express any value including letters.

So to all others who responded, no trap.

#86 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 19 September 2010 - 02:19 AM

Now consider the number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the gospels (not to mention the rest of the bible) and it is very difficult to understand why anyone would believe a single word of it


What are these inaccuracies and inconsistencies?

#87 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 19 September 2010 - 03:12 AM

Isn't it interesting that atheists claim no originals ''of any of the gospels in existance. The copies that do exist were made two or three generations after the death of Jesus'' but never say the same sort of thing for all other religious texts.

Take for example Hinduism - the Rig-Veda.

Scholars claim the Rig-Veda is as old as 1700BC, yet the earliest date of a physical manuscript is 1464. Not 1464BC, but AD 1464!

No atheist attacks the Hindus texts though.

#88 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 September 2010 - 03:41 AM

Actually there are no originals of any of the gospels in existance. The copies that do exist were made two or three generations after the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

View Post

First – No one said we have original copies extant, you really should read the post before you respond to it, therefore your argument is moot, and a non sequitur.
Second – We do not need the originals because we have exact quotes from the text, written down by the Church fathers and secular writers (who were quoting the writings in order to argue against them, ridicule them and/or satirize them). In fact, we could reconstruct the entire New Testament from those quotes, save eleven verses. Therefore your post is moot AND a non sequitur.

A committee of christians met some hundreds of years after the death of Jesus and decided which writings and including copies of gospels should be included in the bible.

View Post

Actually, there were numerous councils convened, the first being held in the third century. But ALL of the books of the New Testament were accepted as Gospel, and revered as scripture long before that time. The Counsels were mainly to refute the acceptance of heretical writings such as the Gnostic gospels (etcetera…)

Even if we accept the copies as true copies they were all written some years or decades after the death of Jesus, by people with a vested interest in perpetuating their story. They claim to remember word for word all of the important statements/teachings made by Jesus even after this length of time.

View Post

First - Again, no one said we had original copies extant; therefore your argument is moot, and a non sequitur. Also, it is quite evident that you are attempting to argue from the historical relativist’s bag of arguments. If you actually did your own studies and research into the subject, you may have been able to mount a cogent dialogue on the subject.
Second – What exactly is this vested interest you are insinuating? Did they receive worldly riches for their vested interest? Did they receive worldly power for their vested interest? Did they receive worldly comforts for their vested interest?

Modern Christians now also tend to believe that these copies of writings made by people with questionable motives and 100% accurate.

View Post

What are the questionable motives you are “a priori” accusing them of? Do you have evidence of the questionable motives?

Now consider the number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the gospels (not to mention the rest of the bible) and it is very difficult to understand why anyone would believe a single word of it.

View Post

What are the inaccuracies? Please list them…
What are the inconsistencies? Please list them…

What is difficult here, is how someone can make baseless accusations from ignorance, and believe they have credibility after they have done so.

Here’s a pretty good resource for you to start a far better inquiry into your misunderstandings: http://www.evolution...topic=1957&st=0



Also, you left one of the most important points of my post:

First – that had absolutely nothing to do with the OP, the conversation, or Gilbos post. Therefore, it is nothing more than another “red herring” intended to divert from the OP, conversation and Gilbo’s post, and it is a non sequitur (and therefore an equivocation).

View Post

You basically trolled your own thread by equivocating on your own post (attempted rebuttal of my post). And, you continued to post some of the same inaccuracies and misconceptions promulgated by the other poster (or should I say “poseur”). So instead of posting inaccuracies, one would think you’d want to keep the OP on topic…

Therefore the following is “TRUE” about your post as well:

So basically, you're just equivocating, trolling, wasting time and spreading misinformation here.

View Post

If you’re going to continue using that moniker, I would suggest you attempt to live up to the standard it sets.

#89 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 September 2010 - 04:24 AM

binary is the answer.  but really I was just having fun.  I figured a little humor doesn't hurt the conversation.

binary counting goes like this
0        =  0
1        =  1
10      =  2
11      =  3
100    =  4
101    =  5
110    =  6
111    =  7
1000  =  8
etc.

Its quite interesting because you can use binary to express any value including letters. 
So to all others who responded, no trap.

View Post


We know Java… You were basically “translating” into binary. The translation doesn’t change the accuracy of the equation. In fact, if you do the computation in binary, it still equals the same sum. :lol:

#90 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 19 September 2010 - 04:38 AM

Actually there are no originals of any of the gospels in existance. The copies that do exist were made two or three generations after the death of Jesus of Nazareth.
A committee of christians met some hundreds of years after the death of Jesus and decided which writings and including copies of gospels should be included in the bible.

Even if we accept the copies as true copies they were all written some years or decades after the death of Jesus, by people with a vested interest in perpetuating their story. They claim to remember word for word all of the important statements/teachings made by Jesus even after this length of time.

Modern Christians now also tend to believe that these copies of writings made by people with questionable motives and 100% accurate.

Now consider the number of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the gospels (not to mention the rest of the bible) and it is very difficult to understand why anyone would believe a single word of it.

View Post

Truth,
Your problem is you view Jesus as a debatable figure of the past, who was written about by men. Christians, on the other hand, know Christ as a present living Person.

You need to read up on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Particularly, the scroll of Isaiah. How do you explain the fulfillment of his prophecies?

If you want to center on the gospels. They are compilations of oral stories, and smaller writings, which were read in churches every Lord's Day.

The councils of Nicea and most of the early church fathers through the first 4 centuries after Christ were instrumental in cannonization. That is a testing of the many writings. Authorship was central--all the authors of the New Testament were of the 12 apostles, or directly worked with them later. OF course Paul was chosen by Christ later, but his ministry was attested by many miracles, and testimony of endurance--his life is a testament of miraculous transformation--from Christian hater to church pillar.

As far as manuscripts and fragments--there are thousands from different eras and languages, that agree. If you are suggesting that someone somehow slipped a fake document in--then tell us how they did it, and fooled the millions of Christians through the ages. We're not talking about the branch Davidians here. It would had to change without our knowing. How would that happen with all the agreeing manuscripts, and the fact that the scripture and Christianity is embedded in European history.

#91 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 19 September 2010 - 05:28 AM

Isn't it interesting that atheists claim no originals ''of any of the gospels in existance. The copies that do exist were made two or three generations after the death of Jesus'' but never say the same sort of thing for all other religious texts.

Take for example Hinduism - the Rig-Veda.

Scholars claim the Rig-Veda is as old as 1700BC, yet the earliest date of a physical manuscript is 1464. Not 1464BC, but AD 1464!

No atheist attacks the Hindus texts though.

View Post



More than happy to question the authenticity of any religious text. The bible is particularly susceptible and I know more about it.

#92 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 September 2010 - 05:35 AM

More than happy to question the authenticity of any religious text. The bible is particularly susceptible and I know more about it.

View Post


Then provide the evidence, and not just more innuendo, presupposition and "a priory" opining!

AND read the forum rules prior to doing so.

#93 Cassiterides

Cassiterides

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • uk

Posted 19 September 2010 - 05:57 AM

Not sure what happened to this thread. 'Truth' started in his original post asking for us to list questions. We did, but he hardly answered any or the ones he did he just responded with faith statements. He never actually provided any evidence for evolution.

Now he's resorted to copy & pastes from atheist websites like the skepticannotatedbible (btw, all those claimed contradictions or errors have been debunked numerous times).

#94 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 19 September 2010 - 06:43 AM

Not sure what happened to this thread. 'Truth' started in his original post asking for us to list questions. We did, but he hardly answered any or the ones he did he just responded with faith statements. He never actually provided any evidence for evolution.

Now he's resorted to copy & pastes from atheist websites like the skepticannotatedbible (btw, all those claimed contradictions or errors have been debunked numerous times).

View Post



As I pointed out earlier, thread was hijacked and diverted when I was answering questions. Check back.

All debunked........I think not. Some perhaps. Yes I borrowed a few from a site, it saves a lot of time. The point is the whole bible/christian story is full of inconsistencies. Read the ten commandments. Then read all the other (lesser?) comandments. Take Jusus two "commandments" (actually just one taken together they amount to ....be as nice to other people as you can". Then ask why an all powerful being would cure one person of blindness but not everyone who is blind. Or why he would consign millions to everlasting damnation just because they lived in a time and/or place where they could not know him.

It just dont make any sense.


Nothing to do with evolution, but we have got rather off track.

#95 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 19 September 2010 - 06:48 AM

Not sure what happened to this thread. 'Truth' started in his original post asking for us to list questions. We did, but he hardly answered any or the ones he did he just responded with faith statements. He never actually provided any evidence for evolution.

Now he's resorted to copy & pastes from atheist websites like the skepticannotatedbible (btw, all those claimed contradictions or errors have been debunked numerous times).

View Post

He has started his attack on the scriptures, since he is unable to back his claims of "answering all" our very legitimate questions about evolution.

Umm, Truth, so are you going to answer my question about how random mutation ever provided selective material to bring about the (not camouflage) the morphing ability of an octopus to look EXACTLY ( not similar) to certain coral. How did that happen by unguided processes? Seems like a bulleye from Pluto to me.

I've been told why, as if I'm so utterly stupid as to not know why? I'm asking HOW.

#96 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 19 September 2010 - 06:56 AM

He has started his attack on the scriptures, since he is unable to back his claims of "answering all" our very legitimate questions about evolution.

Umm, Truth, so are you going to answer my question about how random mutation ever provided selective material to bring about the (not camouflage) the morphing ability of an octopus to look EXACTLY ( not similar) to certain coral.  How did that happen by unguided processes?  Seems like a bulleye from Pluto to me.

I've been told why, as if I'm so utterly stupid as to not know why?  I'm asking HOW.

View Post



Cells in the octopus (or an ancestor of) mutated to acquire the abilty to change the skin colour (this is well known in biology). These mutations and others producing the eye and cns resulted in an ability (heritable) to mimic surroundings therefor avoiding predation or improving hunting ability, or both. Animals with this ability breed better as a result and hence the mutations involved become more widespread and eventually dominate in the population.

#97 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:17 AM

Here are a few:

View Post


It is against the forum rules, and dishonest as well, to simply copy and past as a response (i.e. pasting a link etc...)

if you are going to make an accusation, YOU must provide evidence ALONG with your own cogent response.

#98 Truth

Truth

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh, UK

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:26 AM

It is against the forum rules, and dishonest as well,  to simply copy and past as a response (i.e. pasting a link etc...)

if you are going to make an accusation, YOU must provide evidence ALONG with your own cogent response.

View Post



OOPs My Bad!!!

Congratulations Ron you have now completely diverted this thread.

I started with a genuine wish to answer questions. Unfortunately very few questions have been asked that did not contain some kind of attack on evolution.
Perhaps a better way to proceed would be to ask questions in the true spirit of questioning. i.e. wanting to hear (read) and attempt to understand the answer given

#99 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 19 September 2010 - 07:50 AM

Cells in the octopus (or an ancestor of) mutated to acquire the abilty to change the skin colour (this is well known in biology).

View Post

You mean DNA mutated. Cells are not the source of mutation. I thought you knew that elementary fact.

So what if it is known in biology? Knowing that something takes place doesn't explain how it came ot be.


These mutations and others producing the eye and cns resulted in an ability (heritable) to mimic surroundings therefor avoiding predation


And what were the theroetical transitional mutations that would not affect other bodily processes? What were the plieotropic enzymes and signal proteins that changed one or two amino acids at a time in the peptide chains, that caused there to be the correct corresponding charge changes, so as change shape and move the binding sites, so to properly interact with other proteins which would blindly build the specialized cells, which in turn interacted to create the ability to morph it's skin.


.

#100 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 September 2010 - 08:07 AM

OOPs My Bad!!!

View Post

Indeed…


Congratulations Ron you have now completely diverted this thread.

View Post

1- nortonthe2nd diverted this thread in post # 77, and I admonished him for it in post#80.
2- You further diverted this thread in post # 83, and I admonished you in post # 89.
3- You both trafficked in misinformation in your respective posts, and I corrected you both in my respective posts.
4- You are further attempting to divert from this thread by accusing me of your (and nortonthe2nd’s) fallacious actions. nortonthe2nd was removed from this forum for this (and other) actions. If you continue along these lines of deceit, you will find yourself in the same situation. Is that what you are trying to do?

I started with a genuine wish to answer questions.

View Post

Then you should “genuinely” answer the questions asked as per your OP.

Unfortunately very few questions have been asked that did not contain some kind of attack on evolution.

View Post

It is not an “attack” on evolution to ask hard questions about evolution. AND, this is what you asked for in your OP. Do not complain about hard questions, when you invited them in your OP. To do so is not only dishonest, but it is just another diversion form answering those hard questions.

Perhaps a better way to proceed would be to ask questions in the true spirit of questioning. i.e. wanting to hear (read) and attempt to understand the answer given

View Post

The “true spirit” of questioning, is to seek actual “TRUTH”. And this is what happened. You attempt to divert from that, by blaming others, will only succeed in your own demise for forum rules infractions. You have been warned for the last time




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users