[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Well well well, yet again, they contradict and lie and regress and loop the goddam loop with firm HARD 'FACTS'!

Oops, they've admitted getting it WRONG .....AGAIN!
Evilution! Yep! They had it all sewn up. Now it's them stitching each other up - and US in stitches!

But this time they assure us it's foolproof. For the godzillionth time.

Till next time.

BBC - Earth News - Frogs re-evolved lost lower teeth

Why don't they just admit what the Bible tells them? That God made all creatures - he intelligently gave the frog its teeth. Enf of.

[BelieverInGod]

Originally Posted by Lost Sheep McUinnean

Well well well, yet again, they contradict and lie and regress and loop the goddam loop with firm HARD 'FACTS'!

Oops, they've admitted getting it WRONG .....AGAIN!
Evilution! Yep! They had it all sewn up. Now it's them stitching each other up - and US in stitches!

But this time they assure us it's foolproof. For the godzillionth time.

Till next time.

BBC - Earth News - Frogs re-evolved lost lower teeth

Why don't they just admit what the Bible tells them? That God made all creatures - he intelligently gave the frog its teeth. Enf of.

So they're saying that the frogs decided they really didn't need teeth, got rid of them, realized the mistake and grew them back? And then they laugh at the idea of Intelligent Design?

Oh, that's rich.

[Jessica4JC]

It certainly takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God! And why believe in something that changes all the time? 100 years from now people will laugh at the old beliefs of today. But 100 years from now Christians will not change. Jesus Christ now and forever!

[Hedonism]

Evolution usually happens when there is a change in environment.

Say for instance we have a frog with teeth, lets call him frog A, these teeth are very useful to the frog as his food source is tough and the teeth help him eat. All is dandy until there is a natural disaster and his food source is gone, suddenly the teeth aren't very useful any more as he has to change food source.

This frog might die because he can't find anything to eat and his teeth keep getting in the way, he does however have a cousin that we'll call frog B whose teeth did not develop very well. His cousin ( was struggling to get by before the natural disaster because his teeth weren't good. After the disaster he has the advantage of not having teeth to get in the way and becomes strong.

As he ( is stronger he has lots of children which, like their father have few teeth. this carries on for years until almost none of the frogs have teeth and are doing fine.

Unfortunately years later the food that was wiped out by the natural disaster grows back after a while the descendants of frog B are still not able to eat this food but a few of the frogs descend from frog A and they are able to eat it, this makes them (A) stronger and they have lots of children until most frogs have teeth again.


Can you understand how that could happen, if you accept that traits of the father are present in the son for instance height or skin colour.

[Hedonism]

Unfortunately I have been given a warning for posting my view on this forum (a private message I cannot reply to). I understand how you do not value my opinion because I am 'unsaved trash' and I feel the same way about the value of 'fundie' opinion. I am however still interested in discussing evidence such as this.

Sorry to have to post this in a public forum but it relates to the topic; how can you offer the evidence if you do not consider different explanations, that's not a correct scientific method.

Alternate views have a place in a science forum as this claims to be.

Once again sorry to have to post this here.

[Talitha]

Originally Posted by Hedonism

Unfortunately I have been given a warning for posting my view on this forum (a private message I cannot reply to). I understand how you do not value my opinion because I am 'unsaved trash' and I feel the same way about the value of 'fundie' opinion. I am however still interested in discussing evidence such as this.

Sorry to have to post this in a public forum but it relates to the topic; how can you offer the evidence if you do not consider different explanations, that's not a correct scientific method.

Alternate views have a place in a science forum as this claims to be.

Once again sorry to have to post this here.

You have faith in science.
We have faith in The Bible and Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Take your false belief elsewhere and to someone who shares your fairy tales.
God Bless.

[Hedonism]

Originally Posted by Talitha

You have faith in science.
We have faith in The Bible and Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Take your false belief elsewhere and to someone who shares your fairy tales.
God Bless.

I would dispute the idea that atheists have faith in science. At least not in the same way that religious people have faith in their books and doctrines. Scientific faith is based on what is observed and what can be said about it. That is why scientists call the things believe theories; they align with the available evidence but there is no saying that new evidence will not come to light in which case the theories will have to be updated or discarded to account for it.

Christian faith defies evidence unless it comes from their holy book or supports their holy book.

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Originally Posted by Hedonism

I would dispute the idea that atheists have faith in science. At least not in the same way that religious people have faith in their books and doctrines. Scientific faith is based on what is observed and what can be said about it. That is why scientists call the things believe theories; they align with the available evidence but there is no saying that new evidence will not come to light in which case the theories will have to be updated or discarded to account for it.

Christian faith defies evidence unless it comes from their holy book or supports their holy book.

I can see where you get your user-name from - the philosophy of charging head on into the fray without reflection, analysis or anything but blind unquestioning faith in doctrines invented by scientists who constantly chop and change and then change and chop, before re-chopping, unchopping, reversing, unreversing, de-reversing and going in circles.

You must get dizzy.

[Hedonism]

Originally Posted by Lost Sheep McUinnean

I can see where you get your user-name from - the philosophy of charging head on into the fray without reflection, analysis or anything but blind unquestioning faith in doctrines invented by scientists who constantly chop and change and then change and chop, before re-chopping, unchopping, reversing, unreversing, de-reversing and going in circles.

You must get dizzy.

While you're exaggerating a little I can see where you're coming from and I agree, science is constantly updating its ideas as new facts come to light.

A good analogy for this in contrast with religion would be of two detectives put on the same case, lets say a robbery. Both search the scene for clues and find a note that says the house was robbed by a known criminal and gives a detailed story of the robbery. Detective A accepts this as the truth. Detective B however keeps looking and finds clues that contradict the note.

Detective B makes a conclusion based on the clues he has found, discarding the note as fallacy. Detective A ignores all of the new clues and believes that the note must be true, because it says so in the note.

[MitzaLizalor]

.
.

.
.
.
.
.

. and mutants always. .
click —> auto-extinct. .

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Originally Posted by Hedonism

While you're exaggerating a little I can see where you're coming from and I agree, science is constantly updating its ideas as new facts come to light.

A good analogy for this in contrast with religion would be of two detectives put on the same case, lets say a robbery. Both search the scene for clues and find a note that says the house was robbed by a known criminal and gives a detailed story of the robbery. Detective A accepts this as the truth. Detective B however keeps looking and finds clues that contradict the note.

Detective B makes a conclusion based on the clues he has found, discarding the note as fallacy. Detective A ignores all of the new clues and believes that the note must be true, because it says so in the note.

Exactly. We agree then.

YOU guys are detective A - except that the note has been changed, scored out and rewritten 100 times and with all different names of culprits plain to see and every time you pick up the note you see a different name that someone's written on it, so you go 'Hey - change that arrest warrant, this here note says it's aNOTHer DIFFERENT suspect now, all cars head to Lower East Side quickstyle!'.

WE are Detective B: we compiled all the evidence and clues a long time before you even found the note and with our taped confession we knew a loooong time ago who dunnit.

You guys are now onto your gazillionth suspect (though it'll have changed by tonight AGAAAIN) and are pulling up outside your millionth donut shop.

[Nigel 88]

Originally Posted by Lost Sheep McUinnean

Exactly. We agree then.

YOU guys are detective A - except that the note has been changed, scored out and rewritten 100 times and with all different names of culprits plain to see and every time you pick up the note you see a different name that someone's written on it, so you go 'Hey - change that arrest warrant, this here note says it's aNOTHer DIFFERENT suspect now, all cars head to Lower East Side quickstyle!'.

WE are Detective B: we compiled all the evidence and clues a long time before you even found the note and with our taped confession we knew a loooong time ago who dunnit.

You guys are now onto your gazillionth suspect (though it'll have changed by tonight AGAAAIN) and are pulling up outside your millionth donut shop.

What is the evolutionist explanation for this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_worm

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Originally Posted by Nigel 88

What is the evolutionist explanation for this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tape_worm

Why ask me? I'm not an evilutionist!

[Nigel 88]

Originally Posted by Lost Sheep McUinnean

Why ask me? I'm not an evilutionist!

It isn't very good form to not know what your opponent's argument is. For your information then:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archiv.../worms0501.htm

As you can see from this article there is no claim regarding 'why' tapeworms exist in the sense that creationists wish to make why claims, i.e. 'why' are they here in the first place. The science of evolution makes no metaphysical claims about the meaning of existence, as such claims are unknowable, untestable and ultimately unscientific. Any claim that could be made scientifically would have to be made based on scientific evidence. And the scientific evidence merely for the existence of God is minimal, let alone for the thesis that he created the Earth and all its creatures.

Now, for the creationist it is a different matter. He or she claims fervently to know the answer to why we, and all the various forms of life on Earth, are all here. So now you need to answer the question from your own perspective. What is the creationist argument for why the tapeworm exists? What is the meaning of tapeworms? Why have tapeworms been 'created'?

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Originally Posted by Nigel 88

It isn't very good form to not know what your opponent's argument is.

I don't NEED to know their point of view and certainly not any 'ar....gu.......ment'...be....cause...they don't HAVE an argument you idiot.


Are you here to troll or to learn and praise the Lord?

[Nigel 88]

Originally Posted by Lost Sheep McUinnean

I don't NEED to know their point of view and certainly not any 'ar....gu.......ment'...be....cause...they don't HAVE an argument you idiot.


Are you here to troll or to learn and praise the Lord?

If they don't have an argument you can't argue against them, or even have any idea what they're saying. And therefore you cannot know they're wrong.

I am here to impart knowledge and hopefully greater understanding among the online Christian community. The Bible tells us not to hate our neighbours, but to understand them and help them.

[Lost Sheep McUinnean]

Originally Posted by Nigel 88

If they don't have an argument you can't argue against them, or even have any idea what they're saying. And therefore you cannot know they're wrong.

You misunderstand. Their 'arguments' have been examined, found to be falsehoods and are therefore non-existent as such.

Ipso facto there is nothing to argue AGAINST.

Would you throw rocks at a non-existent sled pulled by non-existent reindeer and hope to hit it? Didn't think so.

Originally Posted by Nigel 88

I am here to impart knowledge and hopefully greater understanding among the online Christian community.

How humble and kind and gracious and altruistic and nicety nicely nice nice nice of you to do such a charitable honorable and nicey nicey nice work of charity. Like amputating grandma's perfectly healthy legs to replace them with fully functional pegs that may last longer but in the end cause her more pain and mean that she can't play rugby with the grankids any more. God Bless your nicenessful nicey little cotton heart you sweetie you.

Originally Posted by Nigel 88

The Bible tells us not to hate our neighbours, but to understand them and help them.

I think you'll find you haven't actually READ the book. Ehem.
Your high-falooting snobbery is now quite embarrassing...preaching to others while parting from a base of pure unadulterated ignorance. Have a read:
New Study Proves Bible Is Not "All About Love" - The Landover Baptist Church Forums