Trump crying about Stephen Curry... lol

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I called out Rip because he's always extolling the virtues of the bible, and yet defends a man who behaves in a way that is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. You're the one who inserted yourself in, telling me I'm a hateful unbeliever and all this nonsense.

All men have sinned. He supported one sinner over another. You had no point

 

[hillelslovak87]

All men have sinned. He supported one sinner over another. You had no point

And what does your book say about hypocrisy, and continuing to perform sin?

 

[hillelslovak87]

Um, no. Fossils don't tell you when things began to exist as much as you will pretend otherwise.

So says you...

This is a terrible assertion. Go to biologos, and let the christians there tell you exactly how you're wrong.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

And what does your book say about hypocrisy, and continuing to perform sin?

You already know, no point in being so tedious. What's your point

 

[hillelslovak87]

You already know, no point in being so tedious. What's your point

That maybe people should not be hypocrites?

And on your other recent posts

Here is biologos on why Ken Ham, and Answers in Genesis are deceitful

http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis...e/ken-hams-alternative-history-of-creationism

Kind of crazy what happens when you actually apply scientific rigor, without bias, yeah?

And on the fossil record
http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record
Mammals first appeared in the fossil record about 230 million years ago, nearly 70 million years after reptiles first appeared. One group of reptiles, the cynodonts, first appeared about 260 million years ago and became increasingly mammal-like in more recent fossils—circa 245 million years ago. This change can be seen most clearly in the bone structure of the ear, as illustrated in Figure 3.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

That maybe people should not be hypocrites?

And on your other recent posts

Here is biologos on why Ken Ham, and Answers in Genesis are deceitful

http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis...e/ken-hams-alternative-history-of-creationism

Kind of crazy what happens when you actually apply scientific rigor, without bias, yeah?

And on the fossil record
http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record
Mammals first appeared in the fossil record about 230 million years ago, nearly 70 million years after reptiles first appeared. One group of reptiles, the cynodonts, first appeared about 260 million years ago and became increasingly mammal-like in more recent fossils—circa 245 million years ago. This change can be seen most clearly in the bone structure of the ear, as illustrated in Figure 3.

You could call him a hypocrite no matter which candidate he supported because they are all sinners. This charge holds no teeth

Blah blah blah... are you claiming they are wrong regarding the Hebrew language? What's the point of bringing any of that up?

So cynodonts became increasingly mammal like... That doesn't suggest mammals didn't already exist

 

[Helden]

Trump cries a lot doesn't he... Perpetually butthurt, just like his followers

 

[hillelslovak87]

You could call him a hypocrite no matter which candidate he supported because they are all sinners. This charge holds no teeth

Blah blah blah... are you claiming they are wrong regarding the Hebrew language? What's the point of bringing any of that up?

So cynodonts became increasingly mammal like... That doesn't suggest mammals didn't already exist

So, not even christians doing the actual science will convince you, but someone like Ken Ham will?

Reptiles come in at around 300 million years ago, mammals at 230 million, and avians at 150. You are perfectly free to go out and find mammals in geological levels that no geologist has ever found, but something tells me no amount of evidence would convince you. Being honest is following the evidence, and I will freely admit that if you could find a mammal at levels that date back 70 million years later than the evidence shows, you would disprove the current framework. Nobody has done this though, despite hundreds of dishonest christian attempts by people like Ken Ham, who tricks gullible christians into parting with their money.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

So, not even christians doing the actual science will convince you, but someone like Ken Ham will?

Reptiles come in at around 300 million years ago, mammals at 230 million, and avians at 150. You are perfectly free to go out and find mammals in geological levels that no geologist has ever found, but something tells me no amount of evidence would convince you. Your burden of proof seems to be a reptile shitting out a whale or something....

Dude stop with Ken Ham... I only used that link to source the section I quoted regarding the Hebrew. We have enough to discuss with your genesis accusations without you getting off topic.

You brought up transitional fossils out of nowhere. You seemed to think we were discussing evolution as a whole? Not the case. You said you could prove reptiles predated mammals and pointed to the fossil record. Fossils do not say when something began to exist. You already admitted that.

You are incredibly scatter brained. This type of confusion on your part is why I wanted to handle 1 topic at a time.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Dude stop with Ken Ham... I only used that link to source the section I quoted regarding the Hebrew. We have enough to discuss with your genesis accusations without you getting off topic.

You brought up transitional fossils out of nowhere. You seemed to think we were discussing evolution as a whole? Not the case. You said you could prove reptiles predated mammals and pointed to the fossil record. Fossils do not say when something began to exist. You already admitted that.

You are incredibly scatter brained. This type of confusion on your part is why I wanted to handle 1 topic at a time.

You said it cant be proven that mammals came after reptiles, as the biblical account says. I provided the evidence. I stated that the fossils cannot prove the ORIGINS of life. Fossils can show quite clearly when animals evolve, and how they evolve.

You are dismissing the evidence, have you read any of the massive amount of information I provided you with?

 

[hillelslovak87]

Trump cries a lot doesn't he... Perpetually butthurt, just like his followers

I like how at his campaign rallies, when he bitches about how CNN doesn't cover the crowd size, while CNN is panning the camera around, showing the crowd size. He must be thinking "This is shit is too easy."

 

[dfoster]

Some lighter skinned blacks like Curry and Kaepernick seem like they are trying to prove their "blackness"

yeah, light-skinned blacks are always caught in between. They tend to get beat up in school by real blacks. He's Creole, they're a little different from Blacks culturally

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

You said it cant be proven that mammals came after reptiles, as the biblical account says. I provided the evidence. I stated that the fossils cannot prove the ORIGINS of life. Fossils can show quite clearly when animals evolve, and how they evolve.

You are dismissing the evidence, have you read any of the massive amount of information I provided you with?

Can the fossil record show when some particular creature came to exist? No. It takes a picture if you will. Not having a picture doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In other words your proof isn't proof

Why don't we come back to this topic as it seems to hinge on evolution with you which is a huge time consuming topic. We can tackle your other issues with Genesis and return?

 

[hillelslovak87]

Can the fossil record show when some particular creature came to exist? No. It takes a picture if you will. Not having a picture doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In other words your proof isn't proof

Why don't we come back to this topic as it seems to hinge on evolution with you which is a huge time consuming topic. We can tackle your other issues with Genesis and return?

So you want photographic proof of the animal being birthed? What could possibly convince you?

This is on topic with our debate. You are claiming that the bible is right, and 150 years of scientific work is wrong.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

So you want photographic proof of the animal being birthed? What could possibly convince you?

This is on topic with our debate. You are claiming that the bible is right, and 150 years of scientific work is wrong.

No, it's ok to say you don't know when something began to exist.

I never said it was wrong. I said it doesn't prove what you think it does. Evolution doesn't make a claim on when things begin to exist. Any person who does is committing an obvious error. Fossils can't determine when something began to exist.

We aren't discussing evolution as a whole. We are discussing It in regards to your claim. Im waiting for you to prove when mammals, or reptiles began to exist

 

[hillelslovak87]

No, it's ok to say you don't know when something began to exist.

I never said it was wrong. I said it doesn't prove what you think it does. Evolution doesn't make a claim on when things begin to exist. Any person who does is committing an obvious error. Fossils can't determine when something began to exist.

We aren't discussing evolution as a whole. We are discussing It in regards to your claim. Im waiting for you to prove when mammals, or reptiles began to exist

Natural selection, along with geology, shows to an approximation, when animal species evolved at certain points, and became different species. Your bible says mammals came before reptiles.

The evidence, in the fossil record, and buttressed by literally dozens of other scientific fields, approximates, for the laymen:

Mammals are synapsids. Sauropsids (reptiles) gave rise to therapsids about 40 million years after Sauropsids became distinct. Therapsids branched off an eventually became mammals. Sauropsids branched off in another way, giving rise to dinosaurs.

It is also extremely important to note that the relevant passage, Genesis 1:24 names creeping things. Would you argue that insects are not included in this category? Insects can be traced to the Ordovician period, roughly 480 million years ago. I think you can tell, 480 million is more than 300 million, and certainly more than 230-260 million.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Natural selection, along with geology, shows to an approximation, when animal species evolved at certain points, and became different species. Your bible says mammals came before reptiles.

The evidence, in the fossil record, and buttressed by literally dozens of other scientific fields, approximates, for the laymen:

Mammals are synapsids. Sauropsids (reptiles) gave rise to therapsids about 40 million years after Sauropsids became distinct. Therapsids branched off an eventually became mammals. Sauropsids branched off in another way, giving rise to dinosaurs.

It is also extremely important to note that the relevant passage, Genesis 1:24 names creeping things. Would you argue that insects are not included in this category? Insects can be traced to the Ordovician period, roughly 480 million years ago. I think you can tell, 480 million is more than 300 million, and certainly more than 230-260 million.

The fossil record shows things undergoing change throughout time I agree. It doesn't show when anything began to exist. You make your "God of the gaps" argument in trying to make it so. You show me a lizard become a bird...if I believe that to be true should I say all birds came from lizards? That is an assumption. You're using assumptions to back your claim.

 

[hillelslovak87]

The fossil record shows things undergoing change throughout time I agree. It doesn't show when anything began to exist. You make your "God of the gaps" argument in trying to make it so. You show me a lizard become a bird...if I believe that to be true should I say all birds came from lizards? That is an assumption. You're using assumptions to back your claim.

This statement shows an utter ignorance about natural selection, and the timescales in which it is affected. What does began to exist mean in your statement? It sounds incredibly vapid and nebulous at the same time.

Animals evolve specific features of their bodies over countless generations. Specific traits, genes and adaptive advantage dont result in a lizard shitting out a bird, which is what you seem to think the case is, from your above statement.

I mean, holy shit, the willfull ignorance on display is ASTOUNDING here. Please, for god's sake, educate yourself on natural selection, in order to not say things like "You show me a lizard become a bird...if I believe that to be true should I say all birds came from lizards?"

I'm half expecting you to argue that 320 is lesser than 230-260....

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

This statement shows an utter ignorance about natural selection, and the timescales in which it is affected. What does began to exist mean in your statement? It sounds incredibly vapid and nebulous at the same time.

Animals evolve specific features of their bodies over countless generations. Specific traits, genes and adaptive advantage dont result in a lizard shitting out a bird, which is what you seem to think the case is, from your above statement.

I mean, holy shit, the willfull ignorance on display is ASTOUNDING here. Please, for god's sake, educate yourself on natural selection, in order to not say things like "You show me a lizard become a bird...if I believe that to be true should I say all birds came from lizards?"

I'm half expecting you to argue that 320 is lesser than 230-260....

You presume to know when the first mammal existed. You also presume to know when the first reptile existed. You would have to know both of these to determine the Bible lied about any particular order.

I don't believe all living things came from single celled organisms. You're gonna have to use evidence that doesn't base itself on that presupposition. I have no problem with natural selection though for the record

You seem worked up... take a break if you have to. We have A LOT to discuss still unless you intend on bailing.

 

[Fedorable]

Natural selection, along with geology, shows to an approximation, when animal species evolved at certain points, and became different species. Your bible says mammals came before reptiles.

The evidence, in the fossil record, and buttressed by literally dozens of other scientific fields, approximates, for the laymen:

Mammals are synapsids. Sauropsids (reptiles) gave rise to therapsids about 40 million years after Sauropsids became distinct. Therapsids branched off an eventually became mammals. Sauropsids branched off in another way, giving rise to dinosaurs.

It is also extremely important to note that the relevant passage, Genesis 1:24 names creeping things. Would you argue that insects are not included in this category? Insects can be traced to the Ordovician period, roughly 480 million years ago. I think you can tell, 480 million is more than 300 million, and certainly more than 230-260 million.

when you say Sauropsids became distinct, do you mean that they grew tufts of grey hair within the brown?