Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean the stomach and the eye should be enough to show the theory does not work. The eye only functions with all of its parts. You mean separately all of the parts formed over millions of years creating nothing but a useless place where an eye should be until one day a working eye? Never mind all of the neurological stuff that is related to sight which is merely a holographic representation of observed light replaying in your "mind".

The eye is not the example you want to use for this argument. We have a wealth of examples from the most primitive light sensing organs to the current human eye that show us exactly how our eye developed over the eons. Try again.

[Nihilist_santa]

I guess I will have to take your word for it huh? Perhaps a link or reference to what you are talking about would help solidify your position.

[Shamalam]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The eye is not the example you want to use for this argument. We have a wealth of examples from the most primitive light sensing organs to the current human eye that show us exactly how our eye developed over the eons. Try again.

Examples which he will conveniently choose to ignore, like so many others before him. I'm just about done with these trolls, as fun as it's been. They are barely even trying anymore. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The eye is not the example you want to use for this argument. We have a wealth of examples from the most primitive light sensing organs to the current human eye that show us exactly how our eye developed over the eons. Try again.

Wrong. Those are merely examples of less sophisticated eyes than our own. Observing that something is less sophisticated than something else is not the same as proving that the less sophisticated organism can turn into a more sophisticated organism through gradual means. Try again.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are seriously grasping at straws here. And of course it isn't found in the bible -- the authors had no fucking idea what they were talking about, which is imminently evident for anyone willing to take a step back and look at the actual evidence. I.E. the text found in the bible as it was written by the original authors.

You and RobotPelvis are doing the exact same thing. You're taking quotes from the bible that are 100% factually incorrect and twisting them to fit your agenda. You seriously think that the Hebrews from thousands of years ago had any concept of an atmosphere surrounding the earth? Or that this atmosphere, composed almost entirely of empty space, could be dense enough to produce the kind of friction necessary to vaporize meteors? Here's another hint: they had no fucking clue about anything of the sort.

Again, there are multitudes of biblical scholars, living and dead, who would disagree with your above interpretation of the word "dome" as presented in Genesis. What makes your opinion any more valid than theirs?

so let me get this straight

hebrews from thousands of years ago had no understanding of scientific concepts like atmosphere, air density, or meteors. and you're dismissing their scripture because it doesn't discuss in detail scientific concepts that they couldn't have understood or even verbalized with a vocabulary that was incapable of even describing numbers beyond "a lot of a lot" (direct translation)? was there even a word for "atmosphere"? do you think they had a word for "billion"?

stop being ignorant before being dismissive. even if an omniscient deity were dictating the bible directly, he'd be limited to the language and concepts understood by the people of the time. when you explain procreation to a 7-year old, do you discuss mitosis, meiosis, alleles, gametes, zygotes, genetics, sperm, and ova? or do you say that when a man and woman love each other, they make babies? you'd have a better shot at describing alleles to a 7-year old. at least the vocabulary exists.

reading the bible like a scientific textbook is disingenuous at best, fucking retarded at worst. yes, it could've been a 9 trillion page manual to the universe that explains things like the atmosphere, dark matter, and the space-time continuum to a species that was still thousands of years removed from sewage systems. but it's not. acting like it was supposed to be is a straw man.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Examples which he will conveniently choose to ignore, like so many others before him. I'm just about done with these trolls, as fun as it's been. They are barely even trying anymore. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am not in the group laying claim to "mountains of evidence and examples" in support of my position then choosing to post none.

You guys still haven't addressed the stomach or tings like the pleiotropy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiotropy

From Wiki. - Pleiotropy of genes impacts the evolutionary rate of genes and allele frequencies. Traditionally, it has been expected that evolutionary rate of genes is related negatively with pleiotropy; however, this has not been clearly found in empirical studies.[7][8] Contrary to this traditional expectation, it has been theoretically demonstrated that evolutionary rate should be positively related with pleiotropy by itself as the square root of gene pleiotropy;[9] however, other effects of pleiotropy may explain why a clear relationship between evolutionary rate and gene pleiotropy has not been found at the genomic scale.[9]

I love how the idea is pooed on by saying no emperical studies have "clearly "shown the negative effects but then provide how theoretically evolution demonstrates this being something positive.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so let me get this straight

hebrews from thousands of years ago had no understanding of scientific concepts like atmosphere, air density, or meteors. and you're dismissing their scripture because it doesn't discuss in detail scientific concepts that they couldn't have understood or even verbalized with a vocabulary that was incapable of even describing numbers beyond "a lot of a lot" (direct translation)? was there even a word for "atmosphere"? do you think they had a word for "billion"?

stop being ignorant before being dismissive. even if an omniscient deity were dictating the bible directly, he'd be limited to the language and concepts understood by the people of the time. when you explain procreation to a 7-year old, do you discuss mitosis, meiosis, alleles, gametes, zygotes, genetics, sperm, and ova? or do you say that when a man and woman love each other, they make babies? you'd have a better shot at describing alleles to a 7-year old. at least the vocabulary exists.

reading the bible like a scientific textbook is disingenuous at best, fucking retarded at worst. yes, it could've been a 9 trillion page manual to the universe that explains things like the atmosphere, dark matter, and the space-time continuum to a species that was still thousands of years removed from sewage systems. but it's not. acting like it was supposed to be is a straw man.

That well summed up his intentions. So the question remains, just where is the bible in direct conflict postmodern science as Sham has claimed? We have yet to so proof, only proof of the opposite

[Ahldagor]

if you're bringing in the fossil evidence claim, and not considering a force of geology like erosion then you're trying to stipulate a specific that won't hold up to basic scrutiny. it's hard to analyze a fossil that has been weathered into dirt particles that are spread hundreds if not thousands of miles by the wind.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Examples which he will conveniently choose to ignore, like so many others before him. I'm just about done with these trolls, as fun as it's been. They are barely even trying anymore. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not sure how providing valid counterpoints to an argument can be considered trolling. If you look at any of my posts I haven't tried to degrade or insult anyone who has disagreed with me. I've merely provided a counterargument. That's not trolling.

[Nihilist_santa]

You don't go we have a theory of evolution now lets look everywhere for signs to support this. This is just confirmation bias. With the above example of pleiotropy we can see that evidence is deemed not concrete unless it fits the model. They are just sifting or cherry picking data that supports the model. It is like climate change but because we live in a society of learned experts we are not supposed to question their authority.