455 replies to this topic

[Arbitran]

Gummug, on 13 October 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

I knew the Quran was bad, but I didn't know it was THAT bad!

Don't believe everything you hear... lozaleibou has never read the Quran. It isn't nearly as bad as he says. It's no better or worse than the Bible.

Edited by Arbitran, 13 October 2012 - 02:19 AM.

[Gummug]

Arbitran, on 13 October 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

Don't believe everything you hear... lozaleibou has never read the Quran. It isn't nearly as bad as he says. It's no better or worse than the Bible.

I have a friend of mine who has a copy and he has been wanting me to read it (and he's a Christian, or at least he says he is), but it's just there are so many books to read. Anyway, I will have to say, I admire Lozaleibou's courage, he's not afraid to at least to speak up for what he believes. I feel like sometimes I don't always say what I should because I worry how people will react, but then, it won't matter when I'm laid in the grave, so I should have more courage and faith like Lozaleibou.

[Arbitran]

Gummug, on 13 October 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

I have a friend of mine who has a copy and he has been wanting me to read it (and he's a Christian, or at least he says he is), but it's just there are so many books to read. Anyway, I will have to say, I admire Lozaleibou's courage, he's not afraid to at least to speak up for what he believes. I feel like sometimes I don't always say what I should because I worry how people will react, but then, it won't matter when I'm laid in the grave, so I should have more courage and faith like Lozaleibou.

Courage is admirable; the spouting of falsehoods disguised as truths is not.

That is my key quarrel with lozaleibou; he speaks with such confidence, and yet fails to back up a single thing he says.

Edited by Arbitran, 13 October 2012 - 10:23 PM.

[Gummug]

Hasina, on 13 October 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....tion_of_the_eye

Thanks for the link Hasina and I'm sorry to take so long to comment on this, my excuse is, I've got so many brands in the fire as it were. Even the chart you linked, convincing as it does seem to be, in my mind begs certain questions. For example, (maybe it was there and I missed it) the chart doesn't give an example of each kind of mollusc, so did they just make this up? 'Cuz if they did I could do the same thing with the ear and any other organ or part. I'm not saying they did, I just don't see an example of each type of "eye". I mean the name of the mollusc or animal of each stage.

[Gummug]

Arbitran, on 13 October 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Courage is admirable; the spouting of falsehoods disguised as truths is not.

That is my key quarrel with lozaleibou; he speaks with such confidence, and yet fails to back up a single thing he says.

Well I hope he gets back on here and backs up his speech!

[Arbitran]

Gummug, on 13 October 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

Thanks for the link Hasina and I'm sorry to take so long to comment on this, my excuse is, I've got so many brands in the fire as it were. Even the chart you linked, convincing as it does seem to be, in my mind begs certain questions. For example, (maybe it was there and I missed it) the chart doesn't give an example of each kind of mollusc, so did they just make this up? 'Cuz if they did I could do the same thing with the ear and any other organ or part. I'm not saying they did, I just don't see an example of each type of "eye". I mean the name of the mollusc or animal of each stage.

I'm not sure I completely understand your question... Sorry...

[Hasina]

Gummug, on 13 October 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

Thanks for the link Hasina and I'm sorry to take so long to comment on this, my excuse is, I've got so many brands in the fire as it were. Even the chart you linked, convincing as it does seem to be, in my mind begs certain questions. For example, (maybe it was there and I missed it) the chart doesn't give an example of each kind of mollusc, so did they just make this up? 'Cuz if they did I could do the same thing with the ear and any other organ or part. I'm not saying they did, I just don't see an example of each type of "eye". I mean the name of the mollusc or animal of each stage.

But did you read the entire page? Evolution's not a certain science, we'll always be missing a step because at this current moment in time we only have the animals that are the current product of evolution, all other animals that proceeded them are dead, and the majority were probably never fossilized. Also, if you want an example of each individual stage, and explanation for every eye that's ever evolved, that's a good way to think, but it would be bloody difficult for anyone to do. Not all animals of today will have an example of the different kinds of eyes, and as the page says, octopuses and mammals evolved the same sort of eye independent of each other, and the eye itself has many, many flaws. It's by no means the perfect way to perceive the world.

Edited by Hasina, 13 October 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[Gummug]

Hasina, on 13 October 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

But did you read the entire page? Evolution's not a certain science, we'll always be missing a step because at this current moment in time we only have the animals that are the current product of evolution, all other animals that proceeded them are dead, and the majority were probably never fossilized. Also, if you want an example of each individual stage, and explanation for every eye that's ever evolved, that's a good way to think, but it would be bloody difficult for anyone to do. Not all animals of today will have an example of the different kinds of eyes, and as the page says, octopuses and mammals evolved the same sort of eye independent of each other, and the eye itself has many, many flaws. It's by no means the perfect way to perceive the world.

I wonder, do you agree, Hasina, that evolution would require billions of years? I found this link that I thought was interesting:
http://www.earthage....h Link Page.htm
Especially it seems interesting to me because he gives both sides of the coin as it were and lets the reader make up his/her own mind.

[Arbitran]

Gummug, on 14 October 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

I wonder, do you agree, Hasina, that evolution would require billions of years? I found this link that I thought was interesting:
http://www.earthage....h Link Page.htm
Especially it seems interesting to me because he gives both sides of the coin as it were and lets the reader make up his/her own mind.

EarthAge is a creationist site; not scientifically credible. I perused their information; vacuous and demonstrably false. But in any case, evolution does not require billions of years; not by a long shot. The difference between you and your parents counts as evolution; as does the difference between Homo sapiens and our ancestor Homo heidelbergensis. Although, certainly, give evolution billions of years to work, and you get an astoundingly diverse array of organisms; i.e., every organism that has ever existed on our planet, up to present day (hundreds of billions of species; incalculable trillions of individuals).

[Gummug]

This is a link to another site, I don't know if it's pro-creation or pro-evolution or neutral, but it does seem to confirm that viable DNA has been found in ancient fossil bacteria:
http://www.mhrc.net/ancientDNA.htm
And this is relevant why? Because viable DNA is supposed to only remain for thousands of years, not millions (of years).

Edited by Gummug, 14 October 2012 - 08:17 PM.

[Arbitran]

Gummug, on 14 October 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

This is a link to another site, I don't know if it's pro-creation or pro-evolution or neutral, but it does seem to confirm that viable DNA has been found in ancient fossil bacteria:
http://www.mhrc.net/ancientDNA.htm
And this is relevant why? Because viable DNA is supposed to only remain for thousands of years, not millions (of years).

That is a creationist site I'm afraid; and, as per usual, disingenuous and intellectually vacuous.

[Gummug]

Arbitran, on 14 October 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

That is a creationist site I'm afraid; and, as per usual, disingenuous and intellectually vacuous.

It's easy to say it's disingenuous and vacuous, but upon what do you base those claims?
eta: I mean if I disagreed with something for whatever reason and wished to avoid a true discussion I could just say, "that's disingenuous and vacuous". Oh really? Why, then?

Edited by Gummug, 14 October 2012 - 08:40 PM.

[docyabut2]

Theres no way to escape hell ,when we live in a decayed world and the pain of life having to nourish life to survive.Don`nt know if its some universal mind thats want to experience life in matter or if its a individal  choice. All I know is we are of everything of the stars and of the  earth and I want to thank all life that went before me that made  life better for me and hope I can leave something that was of a helped to others

[Arbitran]

Gummug, on 14 October 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

It's easy to say it's disingenuous and vacuous, but upon what do you base those claims?
eta: I mean if I disagreed with something for whatever reason and wished to avoid a true discussion I could just say, "that's disingenuous and vacuous". Oh really? Why, then?

Simple: the "scientific" information they are dispensing is simply incorrect. I could say things more specific, but I'm not exactly at liberty to go and refute the entire website at the moment.

[Gummug]

Arbitran, on 14 October 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

Simple: the "scientific" information they are dispensing is simply incorrect. I could say things more specific, but I'm not exactly at liberty to go and refute the entire website at the moment.

OK is this incorrect also?

Eta: even if you disagree with it, imo he's pretty funny!

Edited by Gummug, 14 October 2012 - 09:07 PM.