Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
...None of this looks like a response to anything I posted. You keep talking about "morphing" yet no one has suggested that evolution occurred as a result of an animal suddenly changing its traits. We're talking about the process of reproduction, and the resultant generations that possess various suites of alterations that separate them from their parent species. You also talk about the idea that this species I've presented suddenly gave birth to humans. That's also both ludicrous and not an argument I've made. Changes that led to humans would have had to accumulate over many millions of years, which means that the ancestor that would have pulled away from apes would still have many ape-like traits and would more closely resemble Orrorin tugenensis than it would us. I have not argued that Orrorin tugenensis is the definitive ancestor of humans and apes, only that various dating techniques and analysis of the bones of this animal have placed it close to the point at which such an ancestor would have existed, and that it is likely in that lineage. You keep trying to use the fact that we don't know if this is our ancestor as proof that evolution isn't real, but a) we're talking solely about human evolution, so at most, what you're doing is pointing out a hole in that story, not in evolution as a whole, b) the fact that there is uncertainty with regards to our evolutionary lineage doesn't indicate that that evolutionary lineage doesn't exist, c) there are other fossils that indicate a clear lineage leading up to humans, this is just the hypothesized ancestor of both apes and humans, and d) other evidence exists supporting the theory of evolution and, more specifically, or relation to apes.
You keep addressing Dawkins as though I'm arguing in defense of him. Once again, it is not my aim to defend specifically what he says, so you can stop using him as a straw man for my argument. Apes are separate from humans, though they are closely related to us. Saying that humans would be a part of the family of apes is accurate, and thus, it is accurate to say that we are part of that family. It is inaccurate to say that humans and apes are the same species or in the same genus. Dawkins could, and likely was, referring to our family-based relation.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
The third sentence is also wrong. Mutations aren't all deletions. There are mutations that result in the insertion of new genetic information. There are mutations that alter single bases or a set of bases in the genome. None of these delete genetic information.
The fourth sentence is wrong. There's no reason to believe that all of evolution results from the addition of information to the genome. Much of the genome seems to have little to no purpose, so theoretically, the removal of these unimportant genetic elements could prove beneficial for some organisms, since it would mean that they would have smaller genomes to replicate and transcribe. Evolution isn't based on the idea that organisms are increasing the amount of information in their genome, only that the information changes to a state that provides some benefit. Deletions can accomplish that.
The rest of your post relies on the above facts being true.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your ignorance is showing. You claimed that much of our genome has little or no purpose. That is incorrect. Scientists are making great strides and figuring out the purpose of genes that were previously unknown. All of our DNA has a purpose. We simply don't know what all of it does...yet.
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
1) I didn't say that any of the genome has little to no purpose. I said that it seems to have little or no purpose. It's not my argument that there's a lot of our DNA that is dispensable, only that it's possible that much of our genome is dispensable. It's your assertion that "All of our DNA has a purpose", despite acknowledging that our knowledge of that purpose is lacking. How do you intend to prove that?
2) You're correct that we are expanding our knowledge of what the various elements of our genome actually do, but we're still an extremely long way from understanding all of it. I'm a microbiologist, and the organism that has easily gotten the most study over the years is E. coli. It has a much shorter genome than ours, and it has no introns (i.e. regions that are cleaved out of transcripts generated from that genome), which means it should be practically all genes. We should know what practically all of them do by now, yet we only know roughly 50% of those functions. That's a huge gap for an organism that we have spent so much time and energy studying. Again, it's your claim that all of the remaining 50% of the genome is entirely functional and that none of it is dispensable. How do you intend to prove that?
3) There is actual proof that certain pieces of the genome are not necessary. DNA viruses integrate into the human genome, many even being transferred vertically (by reproduction) through generations of humans. There are pieces of DNA that are highly repetitive, basically coding the same sequence over and over and over again, imparting no clear benefit or harm. There are portions of the human genome called telomeres that are specifically there to function as buffers that prevent the slow degradation of the ends of our genomes from becoming damaging by affecting our genes. That functionality does not appear to come with any purpose to the specific sequence, only to their length and position in the genome. Again, it's your claim that all of these sequences impart some important functionality, and that their loss or change does some clear damage to us as organisms. Where's your proof?
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
Where is YOUR proof that any of our DNA is redundant or useless. We do not have a complete understanding of our genome, so yours is an argument from ignorance. All I'm saying is that there are many genes that we did not understand the function of, and now we do.
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Actually that's not accurate...actually it's flat out wrong as a matter of specific and irrefutable fact. What you are outright denying (Intentionally or not) is the existence of Common Descent Evolutionary Biology which, as a theory of evolution, supposes that every creature on the planet originated from one organism. If this were the case, while it's simplified to say this, then YES, birds would turn into fish or vice a versa over long periods of time and a "Transformation" would in fact occur.
Darwin himself supposed that organisms come about by evolution. So contrary to your opinion on the matter, Evolutionary theory does in fact include multiple...countless suppositions that (In layman's terms) animals did transform into other animals, one species became another and yes, even some fish became birds.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.14  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
None of what I've said in this debate or elsewhere clashes with the common descent, nor have I argued that organisms do not come about by evolution... if I had, that would put me in direct contradiction to the argument I'm trying to make. What I said was that animals do not transform, i.e. one species does not simply change into another. One species does give rise to another, but that terminology is important because of two distinctions. First, it's distinct in that we're talking about a generational change, i.e. the offspring of a subset of a given species has sufficiently changed such that it can no longer be called the same species as the parents. Second, that change is genetic, i.e. they are born with it. This is not a transformation because the word transform implies that something is changing into something else. The original species persists, though it may die out for other reasons. The new species is distinct from the moment it comes into the world, hence it does not transform, unless you call the assortment of genes and the alterations in early development that result from it a transformation.
As for your point about common descent, I suppose I could be clearer, but I think you're taking liberties with the theory. The theory says that we all came from a common ancestor or set of ancestors, that is true. Implicit in that is that we did come from a single-celled lifeform that most likely resembled modern bacteria, and that, since most life came from the ocean, one of our earlier multicellular ancestors was likely something akin to a fish. Note the words "resembled" and "akin," because the organisms that would have existed at that time likely bore little resemblance to organisms today. But even assuming that these were exactly the same, I object to the notion that animals simply kept morphing back and forth across taxonomies. The notion that "birds would turn into fish or vice a versa over long periods of time" is not something I've ever seen suggested by any evolutionary scientist. Perhaps if that bird was subjected to such selective pressures that it would be required to breathe underwater in order to survive, I could see your point that an organism could theoretically evolve in that direction, eschewing its feathers and hollow bone structure while growing scales and changing both eye and breathing structures over successive generations, though that seems like it would just kill them before they ever got the chance. Organisms evolve to fill ecological niches or deal with other selective pressures, and the process isn't as random as you're making it out to be. They certainly don't tend to just shift to a new class in taxonomy simply because evolution happens. Ancestral species, much like human ancestors, tend to share traits with the successive generations. If you go back far enough, those traits become fewer and fewer, but the notion that time allows for every conceivable shift of every conceivable species into a dramatically different species just makes a caricature of the theory. It doesn't engage with the logic of it, and it takes the implications to ludicrous extremes.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
Athiests used to believe, and many still do, that humans have vestegial organs. The appendix, for example, which plays a very important role related to our health. There is also the myth that the human tailbone means we once had tails. Also debunked by science. Scientists don't know everything. They never will.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't see how this post is at all responsive to my previous argument. The fact that we have grown to understand that many human organs have a purpose that was not previously understood is not an indication that scientist are, today, wrong in their assessment of biochemistry, genetics, or evolution. Yes, scientists don't know everything. Yes, they never will. But your argument is that all of our genetic information performs an important function. That's been clearly debunked. You can claim all you want that anything that has been knocked out may have some unknown function, but even if it does (and that's a big assumption - just because the uselessness of certain organs and structures have been debunked doesn't mean that every single piece of our entire genome has sequence-based functional significance), there is absolutely no reason to believe that that function is important to human health or well-being. The whole point I was making is that some pieces of our genome are likely dispensable. I don't see you addressing that beyond assertions to the contrary.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
The Hominidae whose members are known as great apes or hominids, are a taxonomic family .. Its original meaning referred only to humans (Homo) and their closest extinct relatives. That restrictive .. (A few researchers go so far as to refer the chimpanzees and the gorillas to the genus Homo along with humans.) - Wikipedia
Hey buddy @whiteflame look, I don't want to go into teaching you Evolution story, so you really should study it first before you try to defend it.
Another thing, .. I don't care what creature was your common ancestor, matter of fact, why don't you do as ALL Evolutionists do, keep the 'missing-link' missing, and just call it as they all do: "Common Ancestor" and don't actually show any skulls, it looks really dumb claiming for the past 150 years hundreds of different pieces of broken bones, and claiming it as the one that gave rise to intelligent humans, and then you have to answer for it like you just did above.
From all the animals on earth, they are all "after their own kind". Never has anyone observed one species speciate into another, look it up yourself. Observing short and a long beaked finches doesn't mean they turned into a lizard or what not!?
Now you supposed to say: "But, .. but it takes millions and billions of years, it does not happen overnight!" And I don't know, maybe this makes perfect sense to you, but if you stepped outside your Religious indoctrination, you would see that no matter how long it takes for one species to evolve into another, the day will come when it just has to happen, .. right? I mean if your waiting for the train and the ticket agent keeps telling you: It's coming, .. it's on its way, really, I swear, look, here is the train track right outside the station!" a year later and your still waiting for the train to arrive you start doubting, right? Now imagine waiting all your life and then your son takes over all his life, yet no train!?
It is this "moment" that the train arrives that I am talking about, when one species mutates/evolves/speciates/gives birth to another completely distinct species? But as all evolutionary-scientists, especially the famous Evolutionist Dr. Professor, PhD, FRS, FRSL THC ethologist, evolutionary biologist and whatever other tittles he carries under his belt; Dawkins say that "No animal of one specific species has ever, or will ever speciate/morph/give birth to another distinct species in their lifetime!" period.
Now if you can prove Evolutionary-Biological Scientists wrong, by all mean do it! Otherwise give up and accept the truth they already admitted to: "Evolution, speciation of one species into a completely different species NEVER happened, nor can it ever happen!"
Then go back digging up graves and collecting fossils of bugs and other small rock-animals which you can line up in any order you wish, and make up ANY story your little heart desires! And all I ask is that you don't teach it to our children as science. Religion, .. yes, we in this country have religious freedom, but not in school, thank God.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.52  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
You’re incorrect in your usage of the terms theory and fact
stephen J Gould
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, “fact” does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
Look, it's pretty clear you have a narrative you're going for and that you're not really interested in engaging with the evidence. You treat evolution as a religion on the basis that the evidence is not complete, but there is evidence, and it is substantial. If you want to actually engage with the points I'm making, I'd be more than happy to continue this conversation. I've already addressed all of the points you've made here, though you have done little more than laugh derisively at any and all of those responses. If your only goal is to belittle, by all means, continue in my absence.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
stephen J Gould
you: Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, “fact” does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
me: See below for the differences between facts & theories. BTW, facts can make up theories, but theories are never considered factual bc they are apt to change by further study, & therefore not the final "fact"on the matter.
Source: the Role of Theory in Advancing 21st Century Biology, National Academy of Sciences
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.6  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
Did you actually read all the quote ......science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 77%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
I actually read what you said and methinks you’re incorrect ......."fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." ....... But hey it’s a free country believe what you will
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
Atheists can you prove that science is correct?
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
Science is is the best we have at attempting to comprehend the world we live in , that is unless one wishes to do away with science altogether and instead rely on “faith claims “ from sacred books written by Bronze Age goat herds
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientists rely on scientific method. A claim is considered proven when it has been found consistent with a wide array of experimental results, and no experimental results contradict it (that does not mean that there cannot be disagreements between observations and the theory whatsoever - however, those disagreements must necessarily lay outside the parameter range the theory is considered in). For example, if I say "This object is a star" and all the data we possess on it is consistent with what we consider stars to be like, then this data constitutes a proof of the claim.
This is not the case with believers. Believers never test their theories for agreement with experimental data. The very concept of "belief" is about considering something to be true without evidence of such (if there is evidence, then you do not need to "believe" - you "know"). What religious believers tend to see as proof is religious texts: if something is pointed out in a religious text, then it is true, regardless of what the real world data has to say about it.
An scientist cannot prove to a deep believer that any part of science is "correct", because the framework the scientist operates in does not match the framework the believer operates in. What a scientist sees as a proof, a believer sees merely as an opinion - and what a believer sees as a proof, a scientist sees as a part of a historical folklore text. There is no common ground as to what constitutes a proof, hence proving anything to each other is impossible.
---
And I find this to be the case in a very large variety of arguments, from scientific and religious, to political and legal. Disagreements arise most of the time in the situations when two sides deal with the same data, but disagree on what this data suggests. It is similar to the situation where a person who only speaks French tries to discuss a piece of art with the person who only speaks Chinese: they are looking at the same piece of art, but they describe it in different ways and do not understand each other. Whenever two people disagree, there is always some level of mutual misunderstanding. People cannot see the problem with each other's eyes, hence they disagree on how this problem should be resolved.
Even among scientists there are different interpretations of how various pieces of data should be interpreted. One will say that Pluto is a planet based on a strict definition of a planet, another will say that Pluto is not a planet based on it qualitatively differing from every other planet found to date. One will say that human-made global warming is evident from the correlation between increasing emissions and rising temperatures, another will consider such a conclusion hasty due to the lack of proper numerical models fitting the numbers we observe. One will say that a wormhole is a rogue entity, a trick following from raw math, but having no basis in physics - another will say that a wormhole can very well exist, because it is a part of an incredibly reliable theory. There is a lot of philosophy and even bias involved in scientific interpretations; the difference from religion is that all these interpretations are still based on the same concept of logic, while religious interpretations are based more on the whim of the practitioner.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
I wish I could agree with you - however, I have found it to often not be true in practice. A person can use a product of a certain theory while denying that it is a product of that theory.
For example, I have seen several times people arguing on an online forum that quantum mechanics is pseudo-science - while using a computer based on the principles of quantum mechanics to post their argument. How is it possible? Well, they might claim that computers are actually based on the principles of solely electrodynamics, and that engineers claiming otherwise simply do not understand their field very well.
Another example is people that do not accept the concept of inertia (however strange, there are such specimens). They have no trouble coasting downhill with no power supplied on a car or a bicycle, but when asked how it works, they offer an obscure interpretation - or even avoid offering any interpretation whatsoever, claiming that it is complicated - rather than admitting that it is simply an illustration of the concept of inertia.
Sailors of the past used the night sky and a compass to navigate big waters. They might not understand what stars are and not be aware of Earth's magnetic field, and they often assumed that it was something akin to magic, or even a divine intervention, rather than pure science - but they used these means of navigation effectively.
I do not know how the Pope explains where an airplane's metal alloys come from. He seems to be a pretty intelligent person, so I doubt he will claim that these alloys were crafted by God's disciples with his divine intervention - he probably accepts science, he just thinks that science would not be thriving as much as it does nowadays without God's influence. But not all religious followers are as impartial as him. Some genuinely believe that the Earth is flat, that light is God's rays, that farm food is a Heaven's gift - and it is very difficult to convince them otherwise, because, as I noted above, the logical framework they are using to justify these beliefs has little in common with the scientific framework.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I love how this guy was actively debating flat earth until he got steamrolled with just the type of evidence that uses the scientific method he is suggesting be considered valid instead of Holy Scriptures. Now all us flat earthers are muted and the passing lie, or flat earth insult can be passed off nonchalantly and he can be none the wiser. It's baiting, but when we bite, he cuts line and jumps ship.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
"The Church says that the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." Ferdinand Magellan
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
@whiteflame Evolution is not only "incomplete", but has absolutely nothing to go on, .. nothing to base a theory on.
I can point to any car on the road, then take you to an 'auto grave yard' with all the gutted cars there and use that to come up with a crazy idea how these car skeletons, over millions and billions of years evolved to the cars we see running on our streets.
At the auto-graveyard, I can pick up a carburetor, and show you that this carburetor really IS part of the cars running on the roads, .. in great detail too, piece by piece, every nut and bolt, also explain how and why the carburetor is on the car, .. but would my accurate description of a carburetor, and showing you how similar it is to the carburetors on the new cars today prove that it evolved over millions and billions of years? Because that is EXACTLY what Evolutionists do, go to the graveyard, dig up graves, and show us bone fragments explaining the similarities of living people. Then they say: "See, now that's science!" as if we Creationists were against a scientific explanation on how the human body is made up!?
So come on guys, stop with all the deceptive theatrics, and the Jedi mind-tricks.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.3  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say ......; Evolution is not only "incomplete", but has absolutely nothing to go on, ..
My reply ......It’s only based on mountains of evidence and is accepted as fact by most rational beings
You say ......nothing to base a theory on.
My reply ......you do not even understand the term theory when applied to science , tell me can you point me in the direction of one peer reviewed piece of works that destroys Evolution ?
Bet you cannot whys that ?
Incidentally if Evolution was proven to be false how would that make a god claim stronger ?
Remarably people like you make claims based on faith and attack others who use evidence to reach valid conclusions
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
To an extent, that happens even in the professional science. Our views on how the world works evolve as we process more and more data and try to fit that data to more and more complex theories.
We did not understand very well how electricity worked, say, in mid-19th century: we had some idea of dynamic and static electricity, of linear and periodic signal, of magnetism being directly related to electricity - and we used the related scientific knowledge to create functional technology, believing our knowledge very accurate. Later, however, we learned about electrons and protons, electron and nuclear shells, ferromagnetism, superconductivity - and from the new standpoint, out knowledge from the 19th century was incredibly naive, incomplete and even wrong (electricity/magnetism is not a material substance, as we used to think, but a force field, and it does not "just exist" in the Universe, but is caused by electrons and their movement).
Does it mean that in the 19th century we accepted the concept of electrons and force fields, even though we did not understand it? I think it is more of a philosophical question. But the practical take-away idea is that having a wrong/incomplete/naive interpretation of a certain effect does not prevent us from using that effect to our advantage. And it is the manifestation of this idea that people can deny basic scientific facts, while still using the scientific achievements in their lives.
I can say that I put my trust in engineering and in hydrodynamics when I board a plan from Chicago to Miami. Someone else will say that they trust the God to keep the plane lifted throughout the flight with heavenly light. They are wrong in that this is not how the plane was constructed - but, again, you cannot convince them that they are wrong, if they really want to believe in their interpretation, because they do not accept your logical framework.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Another here:
http://www.baylorhealth.edu/Documents/BUMC Proceedings/2012 Vol 25/No. 1/25_1_Kuhn.pdf
Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings25(1):41-47, 2012.
I know that peer review doesn't mean infallible, but there's a couple reads.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.22  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
"A SOLAR eclipse is the result simply of the moon passing between the sun and the observer on earth. But that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.
Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth belowthe sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?"
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 11%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
@KJVPrewrather
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
@poco I agree that 'facts' are only facts until someone finds something wrong with it,. This could take 1 year, 100 years or 1,700 years, like Believers and followers of Jesus calling themselves Christian. (another topic maybe)
But when Jesus said: "Verily I tell you the truth, .." now that's 'fact' that we can put our lives on.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.8  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say .....But when Jesus said: "Verily I tell you the truth, .." now that's 'fact' that we can put our lives on.
My reply .... Really ? Maybe you need to look up the lies and broken promises by Jesus ?
Its amazing that Christians claim as fact nonsense from a book of gibberish
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Joeseph said: ......It’s only based on mountains of evidence and is accepted as fact by most rational beings
The pseudoscientific "mountains of evidence" that is accepted by Evolution-Religion has nothing to do with real science., or that they are "rational beings".
What's the difference between Satanists
and Evolutionists;
Nothing. They both rob graves and take the skull and bones of peoples loved ones, and worship them in their rituals.
Only Satanists don't call other humans: "animals and apes".
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.46  
  Sources: 16  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
My reply .... Really ? Maybe you need to look up the lies and broken promises by Jesus ?
  Considerate: 58%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say .....The pseudoscientific "mountains of evidence" .....
My reply .....This from a person who believes in talking serpents , a talking Donkey , Noah’s ark , virgin births and a zombie named Jesus is hilarious
You say .....that is accepted by Evolution-Religion ....
My reply .... I’m glad you see religion as being such a bad thing you attempt to brand it Evolution as “religious “
You say ...has nothing to do with real science., or that they are "rational beings".
My reply .....Evolution is fact you’re a science denier , also you’re not a rational being in fact the reverse
You say ....What's the difference between Satanists and Evolutionists
Nothing. They both rob graves and take the skull and bones of peoples loved ones, and worship them in their rituals.....
My reply ....You’re insane I don’t believe in Satan or god and Evolution has nothing to do with a belief in either
You say ....Only Satanists don't call other humans: "animals and apes".
My reply .... really and you know this how ?
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
you: You say .....But when Jesus said: "Verily I tell you the truth, .." now that's 'fact' that we can put our lives on.
My reply .... Really ? Maybe you need to look up the lies and broken promises by Jesus ?
me: Just what lies & broken promises" are you referring to?
My reply .... We shall start with one blatant lie ,
Jesus, if he had the omniscience of a god, told this lie:
“…Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matthew 16: 27, 28)
But everyone in his presence did die without seeing the kingdom which was promised. Today they are still waiting for the second coming. Because it never happened and it clearly won’t.
Jesus either told all of these lies – or his exact words have been lost (see example 3).
God has not interceded to clear any of it up. And so the branches of Christianity have warred against each other for centuries.
You say ......You do realize that question marks are not supposed to have a space between it & the last letter of the last word in that sentence right? Or don't you believe in correct English grammar either)? Just gotta laugh.
My reply .... Let me correct you yet again .....
Spacing With Punctuation. With a computer, use only one space following periods, commas, semicolons, colons, exclamation points, question marks, and quotation marks. The space needed after these punctuation marks is proportioned automatically. Use no spaces on either side of a hyphen.
Spacing with Punctuation | Punctuation Rules
https://www.grammarbook.com › spacing
You got to laugh
you: Its amazing that Christians claim as fact nonsense from a book of gibberish
me: Ya know what's even more amazing is that you keep referencing a book that you say is fiction & don't believe in. Most people would ignore such a book they thought of is worthless ...... most non-trolling people that is.
My reply ..... Ya ? Yes I reference it to correct internet trolls like you , it is worthless I’m glad you agree but I do like to correct worthless people on their ....worthless book
There’s that deflection again where you accuse me of being a troll yet you harass others on this site , but you’re a “ Christian “ aren’t you ? Another space for you .... enjoy
  Considerate: 42%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.8  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 71%  
  Learn More About Debra
you: You say .....But when Jesus said: "Verily I tell you the truth, .." now that's 'fact' that we can put our lives on.
My reply .... Really ? Maybe you need to look up the lies and broken promises by Jesus ?
me: Just what lies & broken promises" are you referring to?
My reply .... We shall start with one blatant lie ,
Jesus, if he had the omniscience of a god, told this lie:
“…Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matthew 16: 27, 28)
But everyone in his presence did die without seeing the kingdom which was promised. Today they are still waiting for the second coming. Because it never happened and it clearly won’t.
That's a literal read of it as far as your interpretation, but typical for an atheist o only interpret it as such.
Jesus did indeed come in his Kingdom during the lifetime of most of those
who heard him on that day. The subject of the Kingdom of God is a broad
and deep one. The Kingdom of God is in one sense the kingship of God in
any one individual’s life. It will also be revealed at the end of time
when the final Kingdom of God will be the eternal city–heaven.
All this is true, but in the context of Matthew 16:28, Jesus is talking
about the kingdom of God in the sense he most commonly uses it in the
gospels. One aspect of the kingdom of God is the church of Christ. The
church is the kingdom. In fact, Jesus had just finished making that point
in Matthew 16:17-19 where Jesus clearly equates the church with the
Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus appears to use the phrase Kingdom of God and
Kingdom of Heaven virtually interchangeable in the gospels.
So when was the prophecy fulfilled? The answer is that the Kingdom of God
and of the Son Jesus Christ came on the day of Pentecost, 50 days after
the resurrection of Jesus. This fulfillment is found in Acts chapter two.
Many prophecies, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament point to
the coming of the Kingdom in a new and unique way on the Day of Pentecost.
For example, one could look at Isaiah 2:2-4. Daniel 2:44,45, Matthew 3:2,
Luke 24:45-47, Matthew 16:18-20 and Matt 16:28 all point to the events of
the pouring out of the Spirit, the first public gospel sermon and the
first conversions to Christ which all occurred on the Day of Pentecost, as
recorded in Acts chapter two.
Jesus did not visibly, physically come back on the Day of Pentecost, but
he God certainly did come in the person of the Holy Spirit on that day.
There are many passages which express the thought that Jesus comes to us
when we receive the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians
15:24, John 14:15-21 and John 16:7-15 come to mind.
Jesus either told all of these lies – or his exact words have been lost (see example 3).
God has not interceded to clear any of it up. And so the branches of Christianity have warred against each other for centuries.
Then what is the above interpretation then?
You say ......You do realize that question marks are not supposed to have a space between it & the last letter of the last word in that sentence right? Or don't you believe in correct English grammar either)? Just gotta laugh.
My reply .... Let me correct you yet again .....
Spacing With Punctuation. With a computer, use only one space following periods, commas, semicolons, colons, exclamation points, question marks, and quotation marks. The space needed after these punctuation marks is proportioned automatically. Use no spaces on either side of a hyphen.
Spacing with Punctuation | Punctuation Rules
https://www.grammarbook.com › spacing
You got to laugh
Wow, never heard of that excuse b4. & I've never seen it b4. I guess you'll resort to any ol type of excuse to make yourself look correct huh?
you: Its amazing that Christians claim as fact nonsense from a book of gibberish
me: Ya know what's even more amazing is that you keep referencing a book that you say is fiction & don't believe in. Most people would ignore such a book they thought of is worthless ...... most non-trolling people that is.
My reply ..... Ya ? Yes I reference it to correct internet trolls like you , it is worthless I’m glad you agree but I do like to correct worthless people on their ....worthless book
You're entitle to your opinion ...... no matter how wrong it may be.
Thing is, many atheists feel that there are many worthwhile lessons contained in the bible, even tho they may not believe in God. Like I said, you're entitled to your opnion.
There’s that deflection again where you accuse me of being a troll yet you harass others on this site , but you’re a “ Christian “ aren’t you ? Another space for you .... enjoy
Harass others? hmmm, you'll have to explain that one.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.52  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
Eclipse means to pass into the shadow of. But the sun doesn't pass into the shadow of the moon. So what some call an "eclipse" is actually an occultation.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Joeseph said: This from a person who believes in talking serpents , a talking Donkey , Noah’s ark , virgin births and a zombie named Jesus is hilarious
So believing in talking monkeys is more scientific?
Joe .... I’m glad you see religion as being such a bad thing you attempt to brand it Evolution as “religious “
Yes, a Religious cult, very dangerous and dehumanizing. Instead, build your faith on evidence with substance like the Bible teaches you, not blindly accept what cults tell you.
Joe - .....Evolution is fact you’re a science denier , also you’re not a rational being in fact the reverse
So finding skulls of gorillas and chimps, then going into cemeteries digging up graves and robbing skull and bones of human loved ones and taking these around the world telling people how this monkey skeleton evolved over millions and billions of years into that human skeleton is science now? I mean what rational person would consider that normal? Seriously, anyone, starting with any child passed the age of 5 that is infatuated with skull and bones, and starts making up stories about them, especially "millions and billions of years ago this and that happened" stories should be examined by psychometrists, and medicated accordingly. Like Richard Dawkins, he should not be allowed to go in public without a long-sleeved white jacket wrapped around him, .. let alone be allowed into schools near children!
Evidence - ....What's the difference between Satanists and Evolutionists, .. nothing. They both rob graves and take the skull and bones of peoples loved ones, and worship them in their rituals.....
Joe - ....You’re insane I don’t believe in Satan or god and Evolution has nothing to do with a belief in either
I have shown ample evidence of the similarities in both, .. and there is no denying of Evolutionists murderous and discriminating past, .. Hitler's Nazis calling anyone not German, including Gypsies and Jews rats, and exposing of them with rat poison;
Now take a look at this short video, and please look at (time 3:34 -) and listen to what this demented, Satanic Evolutionist says:
It's obvious that poor child is very uneasy and even frightened by what this madman is telling her, calling her cousins "rats"! I'm sure she knows what needs to be done if there was a rat infestation in her house, .. so just imagine what's going on in her frightened mind being locked in a hotel room with this guy? And he is not kidding either, as you can see he is VERY serious, you don't see one smile on his face. This is a perfect example of a religious fanatic brainwashing his followers like David Koresh, Jim Jones, Hitler, Pol Pot and other Nazi and Communist Evolutionists did.
Look, I'm just warning people by reminding them what happens when people like Dawkins start making a name for themselves by good intended sheeple like us allowing ourselves to listen to such outrageous stories! The man just called her and her family descendance of rats, animals. How does she know she will make it out of that Motel room alive and not be chopped up and eaten like Dahmer did to all those kids!?
Just listen to Dawkins rambling on, .. I mean this guy really and truly believes that she's just another animal on a farm, including her family, and cousins, even a rodent!
Evidence says ....Only Satanists don't call other humans: "animals and apes".
Joe - .... really and you know this how ?
I've known Satanists, seen Satanic movies, conversations from Anton Levy Szandor, and they don't go around calling other people "animals". They sacrifice animals, and yes humans too, just like we've seen in the history of Evolutionists. Ota Benga, the Aborigines the black slavery, and the starvation of the blacks today is ALL because of this Evolution Religion!
Hey buddy, remember this is a debate, nothing against you personally, I love you and everyone here. I really do pray to God you could show me evidence to prove me wrong, good luck! But I know better. I've done my homework, seen, heard and been through things, .. so unlike Dawkins and other Evolutionists, speak from evidence accumulated over the past 62 years.
Thank you.  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.1  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
you: You say .....But when Jesus said: "Verily I tell you the truth, .." now that's 'fact' that we can put our lives on.
My reply .... Really ? Maybe you need to look up the lies and broken promises by Jesus ?
me: Just what lies & broken promises" are you referring to?
My reply .... We shall start with one blatant lie ,
Jesus, if he had the omniscience of a god, told this lie:
“…Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matthew 16: 27, 28)
But everyone in his presence did die without seeing the kingdom which was promised. Today they are still waiting for the second coming. Because it never happened and it clearly won’t.
That's a literal read of it as far as your interpretation, but typical for an atheist o only interpret it as such.
Jesus did indeed come in his Kingdom during the lifetime of most of those
who heard him on that day. The subject of the Kingdom of God is a broad
and deep one. The Kingdom of God is in one sense the kingship of God in
any one individual’s life. It will also be revealed at the end of time
when the final Kingdom of God will be the eternal city–heaven.
All this is true, but in the context of Matthew 16:28, Jesus is talking
about the kingdom of God in the sense he most commonly uses it in the
gospels. One aspect of the kingdom of God is the church of Christ. The
church is the kingdom. In fact, Jesus had just finished making that point
in Matthew 16:17-19 where Jesus clearly equates the church with the
Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus appears to use the phrase Kingdom of God and
Kingdom of Heaven virtually interchangeable in the gospels.
So when was the prophecy fulfilled? The answer is that the Kingdom of God
and of the Son Jesus Christ came on the day of Pentecost, 50 days after
the resurrection of Jesus. This fulfillment is found in Acts chapter two.
Many prophecies, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament point to
the coming of the Kingdom in a new and unique way on the Day of Pentecost.
For example, one could look at Isaiah 2:2-4. Daniel 2:44,45, Matthew 3:2,
Luke 24:45-47, Matthew 16:18-20 and Matt 16:28 all point to the events of
the pouring out of the Spirit, the first public gospel sermon and the
first conversions to Christ which all occurred on the Day of Pentecost, as
recorded in Acts chapter two.
Jesus did not visibly, physically come back on the Day of Pentecost, but
he God certainly did come in the person of the Holy Spirit on that day.
There are many passages which express the thought that Jesus comes to us
when we receive the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians
15:24, John 14:15-21 and John 16:7-15 come to mind.
Jesus either told all of these lies – or his exact words have been lost (see example 3).
God has not interceded to clear any of it up. And so the branches of Christianity have warred against each other for centuries.
My reply ......
Wow, never heard of that excuse before. I've never seen it before , I guess you'll resort to any ol type of excuse to make yourself look correct huh?
You say ......You do realize that question marks are not supposed to have a space between it & the last letter of the last word in that sentence right? Or don't you believe in correct English grammar either)? Just gotta laugh.
My reply .... Let me correct you yet again .....
Spacing With Punctuation. With a computer, use only one space following periods, commas, semicolons, colons, exclamation points, question marks, and quotation marks. The space needed after these punctuation marks is proportioned automatically. Use no spaces on either side of a hyphen.
Spacing with Punctuation | Punctuation Rules
https://www.grammarbook.com› spacing
You got to laugh
You say .....Wow, never heard of that excuse b4. & I've never seen it b4. I guess you'll resort to any ol type of excuse to make yourself look correct huh?
My reply .....Indeed yet it's from a source with expertise on the subject , but then again you didn't even know or ever hear of the King James Bible and your spelling is dreadful
Let's see what psychologists think about idiots such as you ....
Psychology monthly .......
Most grammar Nazis are foolish who are desperately trying to make themselves look more intelligent. Spelling things correctly is very important but its not all that matters. Saying you can spell every word in the dictionary does not mean you understand what those words means and if that is the case that makes you are a very person. If someone can use words correctly but can not spell a single one that person might be smart but they need to learn grammar and spelling better. However they might be more educated than a person who can spell everything. Further, if you are going to discredit an entire argument or a person based on spelling alone that means you are incredibly shallow and not intelligent enough to grasp complex concepts. Which just means that person you were insulting is probably more times smarter than you are.
How very accurate experts agree you're an
you: Its amazing that Christians claim as fact nonsense from a book of gibberish
me: Ya know what's even more amazing is that you keep referencing a book that you say is fiction & don't believe in. Most people would ignore such a book they thought of is worthless ...... most non-trolling people that is.
My reply ..... Ya ? Yes I reference it to correct internet trolls like you , it is worthless I’m glad you agree but I do like to correct worthless people on their ....worthless book
You say ....You're entitle to your opinion ...... no matter how wrong it may be.
Thing is, many atheists feel that there are many worthwhile lessons contained in the bible, even tho they may not believe in God. Like I said, you're entitled to your opnion.
My reply .....
You're entitled to your opinion ...... no matter how wrong it may be.
Thing is, many theists feel that there are many worthless lessons contained in the bible, even though they believe I need God. Like I said, you're entitled to your opnion.
My reply ....,Your spelling and punctuation is dreadful .....Check out your ratings on you right profile page I am miles ahead of your on every count
You say .......You're entitled to your opinion ...... no matter how wrong it may be.
There’s that deflection again where you accuse me of being a troll yet you harass others on this site , but you’re a “ Christian “ aren’t you ? Another space for you .... enjoy
You say ....Harass others? hmmm, you'll have to explain that one.
My reply .....
Your denial is hilarious and typical of your type of " Christian " who ignores everything in the bible which he claims are the teachings of Christ and hypocritically resorts to deceit and lies
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.4  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're making no sense at all, I do not reply to people such as you who launch into unfounded attacks based on the imaginings of their own minds ,if and when you type something remotely intelligible I may reply
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
you: You say .....But when Jesus said: "Verily I tell you the truth, .." now that's 'fact' that we can put our lives on.
My reply .... Really ? Maybe you need to look up the lies and broken promises by Jesus ?
me: Just what lies & broken promises" are you referring to?
My reply .... We shall start with one blatant lie ,
Jesus, if he had the omniscience of a god, told this lie:
“…Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matthew 16: 27, 28)
But everyone in his presence did die without seeing the kingdom which was promised. Today they are still waiting for the second coming. Because it never happened and it clearly won’t.
That's a literal read of it as far as your interpretation, but typical for an atheist o only interpret it as such.
Jesus did indeed come in his Kingdom during the lifetime of most of those
who heard him on that day. The subject of the Kingdom of God is a broad
and deep one. The Kingdom of God is in one sense the kingship of God in
any one individual’s life. It will also be revealed at the end of time
when the final Kingdom of God will be the eternal city–heaven.
All this is true, but in the context of Matthew 16:28, Jesus is talking
about the kingdom of God in the sense he most commonly uses it in the
gospels. One aspect of the kingdom of God is the church of Christ. The
church is the kingdom. In fact, Jesus had just finished making that point
in Matthew 16:17-19 where Jesus clearly equates the church with the
Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus appears to use the phrase Kingdom of God and
Kingdom of Heaven virtually interchangeable in the gospels.
So when was the prophecy fulfilled? The answer is that the Kingdom of God
and of the Son Jesus Christ came on the day of Pentecost, 50 days after
the resurrection of Jesus. This fulfillment is found in Acts chapter two.
Many prophecies, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament point to
the coming of the Kingdom in a new and unique way on the Day of Pentecost.
For example, one could look at Isaiah 2:2-4. Daniel 2:44,45, Matthew 3:2,
Luke 24:45-47, Matthew 16:18-20 and Matt 16:28 all point to the events of
the pouring out of the Spirit, the first public gospel sermon and the
first conversions to Christ which all occurred on the Day of Pentecost, as
recorded in Acts chapter two.
Jesus did not visibly, physically come back on the Day of Pentecost, but
he God certainly did come in the person of the Holy Spirit on that day.
There are many passages which express the thought that Jesus comes to us
when we receive the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians
15:24, John 14:15-21 and John 16:7-15 come to mind.
Jesus either told all of these lies – or his exact words have been lost (see example 3).
God has not interceded to clear any of it up. And so the branches of Christianity have warred against each other for centuries.
My reply ......
Wow, never heard of that excuse b4. & I've never seen it b4. I guess you'll resort to any ol type of excuse to make yourself look correct huh?
You say ......You do realize that question marks are not supposed to have a space between it & the last letter of the last word in that sentence right? Or don't you believe in correct English grammar either)? Just gotta laugh.
My reply .... Let me correct you yet again .....
Spacing With Punctuation. With a computer, use only one space following periods, commas, semicolons, colons, exclamation points, question marks, and quotation marks. The space needed after these punctuation marks is proportioned automatically. Use no spaces on either side of a hyphen.
Spacing with Punctuation | Punctuation Rules
https://www.grammarbook.com› spacing
You got to laugh
You say .....Wow, never heard of that excuse b4. & I've never seen it b4. I guess you'll resort to any ol type of excuse to make yourself look correct huh?
My reply .....Indeed yet it's from a source with expertise on the subject , but the again you didn't even know or ever here of the King James Bible and your spelling is dreadful
Let's see what psychologists think about idiots such as you ....
Psychology monthly .......
Most grammar Nazis are foolish who are desperately trying to make themselves look more intelligent. Spelling things correctly is very important but its not all that matters. Saying you can spell every word in the dictionary does not mean you understand what those words means and if that is the case that makes you are a very person. If someone can use words correctly but can not spell a single one that person might be smart but they need to learn grammar and spelling better. However they might be more educated than a person who can spell everything. Further, if you are going to discredit an entire argument or a person based on spelling alone that means you are incredibly shallow and not intelligent enough to grasp complex concepts. Which just means that person you were insulting is probably more times smarter than you are.
How very accurate experts agree you're an
you: Its amazing that Christians claim as fact nonsense from a book of gibberish
me: Ya know what's even more amazing is that you keep referencing a book that you say is fiction & don't believe in. Most people would ignore such a book they thought of is worthless ...... most non-trolling people that is.
My reply ..... Ya ? Yes I reference it to correct internet trolls like you , it is worthless I’m glad you agree but I do like to correct worthless people on their ....worthless book
You say ....You're entitle to your opinion ...... no matter how wrong it may be.
Thing is, many atheists feel that there are many worthwhile lessons contained in the bible, even tho they may not believe in God. Like I said, you're entitled to your opnion.
My reply ....,Your spelling and punctuation is dreadful .....
You're entitled to your opinion ...... no matter how wrong it may be.
Thing is, many Christians feel that there are many worthless lessons contained in the bible, even though they claim to believe it , Like I said, you're entitled to your opnion.
There’s that deflection again where you accuse me of being a troll yet you harass others on this site , but you’re a “ Christian “ aren’t you ? Another space for you .... enjoy
You say ....Harass others? hmmm, you'll have to explain that one.
My reply .....
Your denial is hilarious and typical of your type of " Christian " who ignores everything in the bible which he claims are the teachings of Christ and hypocritically resorts to deceit and lies
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.3  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh dear , that’s it your list of “peer “ reviewed papers ..... hilarious
On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.On September 7, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement retracting the article as not having met its scientific standards, and saying that it had been published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard Sternberg, "without review by any associate editor".Critics believe that Sternberg's personal and ideological connections to Meyer suggest at least the appearance of conflict of interest in allowing Meyer's paper to be published
Do you want to equally destroy your claims about Kuhn ? You know all this off course but you thought you had another person that would accept your ridiculous claims , so seriously any peer reviewed papers ?
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra