The Ufo Excavations are progressing

[Hey00]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Rofl.

You can rofl all you want, you're unable to provide a single peer reviewed paper supporting your claims.

That's what I said. God didn't demand any human sacrifices in the old testament.

No it isn't, read your own quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

No sacrifice ever happened, so you don't have a case

Do you need me to give you the definitions of the words "ever" and "happen"? You used those words, I assumed you knew their meanings.

And even so, sure, he didn't demand it, but he accepted it when he could have stopped it. Your god is an ass.

There was a commandment wich required continous animal blood to cleanse Israel from sins. It's all in the bible. Gogogo.

And what sin exactly needed that human sacrifice? Do you even know what is the story of Jephthah? Apparently, you don't. But again, why would you know the book you consider so holy?

Who cares if X supports Y? It doens't neccessarily mean it's true. If you want to learn the truth, you must investigate evidence yourself. You don't need to be a high-level scientist to understand and read a study about genetics.

It's not selective reading either. You have this idea in your mind: if you read a scientifical study and absorb it, you become a staunt believer in evolution, or if you don't you are selectively reading. That's not the case at all. I read the study, and understand their opinion, and then I try to understand why exactly they believe is that.

This makes it much easier to understand these people, and where they are coming from. Honestly, I believe they mostly believe in it, becouse they havent been taught to question. And why would they spend their time questioning evolution, if there is no personal gain from it? In fact, they might even lose their job.

Ignorance is bliss.

Who cares about peer review? Mmh, let's see, I dunno, maybe 99.9% of the scientific community? The one who consider the peer review process as an extremely important step of the scientific method? The same scientific community that researched the universe, improved our knowledge, achieved real success, and realized more in a few centuries than religion could ever in thousands of years?

But yep, you're probably right, peer review is completely useless. At the end of the day, it's not as if science worked, we'd know it, right?

You amaze me, continually. You're so ignorant about everything, from the universe to the bible, from genetics to culture, that it is hilarious. Keep up the good work

[TwoHourMotel]

I have to agree with Hey00, the entertainment value I get from reading these creationist claims by some theists on this forum fills my day with joy.

[RCHLNKI]

Originally Posted by TwoHourMotel

I have to agree with Hey00, the entertainment value I get from reading these creationist claims by some theists on this forum fills my day with joy.

And I agree with you

[Kaiverrettu]

Originally Posted by Hey00

Do you need me to give you the definitions of the words "ever" and "happen"? You used those words, I assumed you knew their meanings.

You misunderstood. We were talking about the sacrifice of Isaac. Obviously, no sacrifice of Isaac ever happened in the bible.

Who cares about peer review? Mmh, let's see, I dunno, maybe 99.9% of the scientific community? The one who consider the peer review process as an extremely important step of the scientific method? The same scientific community that researched the universe, improved our knowledge, achieved real success, and realized more in a few centuries than religion could ever in thousands of years?

Stop lieing by piling all of the different religions in the world together. There is only one way to reach to father in heaven and receive eternal joy, and that is through Jesus.

Other religions cannot reach the divine joy and pleasure given to the saints who have faith in Jesus.

But yep, you're probably right, peer review is completely useless. At the end of the day, it's not as if science worked, we'd know it, right?

Once again, I tell you this: there is no way to confirm that evolution happens on such a large scale in the nature, it has actually never ever been conclusively proven in the first place.

Only thing wich we can confirm in the nature to occur are spontantenous instances of specialization. One could say specialization fits the evolutionary theory, but I dsagree.

The instances of specialization we can see in the nature are extremenely limited; and when we have such huge instances of specialization that evolutionits themself agree are huge, there is no evidence of any X species becoming Y and so on. There is a certain lizard with very regocnizable digestive trait, "evolved" over the span of 40 years, yet the Lizard looks just like any other moderday lizards does.

Thus, these spontantenous instances of specialization cannot be used as evidence for macro-evolution.

Moreover, it actually looks like some animals are actually simply programmed - in genes - to be able to adjust to their new surroundings. The Lizard's new digestive trait is a brilliant evidence of that.

Yet, you wouldn't except a Zevra or Camel to be able to adapt to eating any kinds of meat, as those are simply programmed to be grass eaters with an excellent grass-eating stomatch and so on. At least not so from a creationistic standpoint.

I have to agree with Hey00, the entertainment value I get from reading these creationist claims by some theists on this forum fills my day with joy.

I find it hilarious how locked you are in your world view to ever concider seriously investigating the matter and finding out the truth.

Ignorance is bliss, huh?

[Hey00]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

You misunderstood. We were talking about the sacrifice of Isaac. Obviously, no sacrifice of Isaac ever happened in the bible.

Oh, I see. But then, if lusting after a woman is the same as raping her, then surely, intending to murder is the same as actually murdering, right?

At the end of the day, your god's still an ass.

Stop lieing by piling all of the different religions in the world together. There is only one way to reach to father in heaven and receive eternal joy, and that is through Jesus.

Other religions cannot reach the divine joy and pleasure given to the saints who have faith in Jesus.

Sure, sure. And what about Thomas? Is he in hell?

But again, I can use my computer or fly in a plane, yet I still wait to see a concrete proof that anything claimed by religion actually exists.

Once again, I tell you this: there is no way to confirm that evolution happens on such a large scale in the nature, it has actually never ever been conclusively proven in the first place.

Only thing wich we can confirm in the nature to occur are spontantenous instances of specialization. One could say specialization fits the evolutionary theory, but I dsagree.

The instances of specialization we can see in the nature are extremenely limited; and when we have such huge instances of specialization that evolutionits themself agree are huge, there is no evidence of any X species becoming Y and so on. There is a certain lizard with very regocnizable digestive trait, "evolved" over the span of 40 years, yet the Lizard looks just like any other moderday lizards does.

Thus, these spontantenous instances of specialization cannot be used as evidence for macro-evolution.

Indeed, you're right, and it's not like all those who actually studied and researched genetics, biology, geology, archaeology, etc. would know anything more about evolution than we do, they are just stupid, brainwashed, or part of that worldwide conspiracy that wants to kill god and replace him with satan

What are centuries of research compared to a 2000 years old book and schizophrenia divine revelations?

I find it hilarious how locked you are in your world view to ever concider seriously investigating the matter and finding out the truth.

Ignorance is bliss, huh?

Well, I actually did, and just to give you one point: human chromosome number 2. I'll be glad to read what delusion you're going to invent to make it fit in your claim (creationwiki is forbidden, be creative!). I expect great things from you on that point, don't disappoint me, ok?

The only way I can make it fit is that god is either an ass trying to deceive us, he was drunk when he created man, or he's just plain stupid, but again, I am no religious specialist and god never spoke to me, so please, enlighten me, I can't bear my own ignorance!

[565656]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Yet, you wouldn't except a Zevra or Camel to be able to adapt to eating any kinds of meat, as those are simply programmed to be grass eaters with an excellent grass-eating stomatch and so on. At least not so from a creationistic standpoint.

[RCHLNKI]

Originally Posted by 565656

That's a miracle made by God though.

[565656]

Originally Posted by RCHLNKI

That's a miracle made by God though.

The hindu gods? I think that's from India.

[Schafusmatus]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Exactly. We can observe and see rain as a physical phenomenom. However, just becouse we see a one cell producing antigen X, doesn't mean that the cell would always in all circumstances emit antigen X.

There's much more complexity when it comes to biological life it just cannot be measured the way that standard physics, like water can. So we must make premises. And there is where evolution goes wrong: it makes the premise that all life has same forefather.

Experiments with microorganisms are not physically observable?
http://personales.upv.es/sfelena/Nat...netics%201.pdf
Here is a little example of such experiements.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

While interesting fairytale in itself, it doesn't really explain the diversity of life as well as creatiolution does, as you would except by observing the nature.

And what is your explanation? God made the diversity of life? This is not even an actual explanation because its missing the how and the why.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

I just explained how the situation is. If you don't want to believe me, or are not interested in reading scientifical stuff and making your own conclusions, then don't. It's not my problem.

I dont need to believe you, you can simply show me the evidence that will, using your words, "amaze me". I am very interested in reading actual scientifical stuff, but you are not giving me any links. And everything I find on my own does only show me that you have actually no idea about biology and evolution.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

I can't prove metaphysical scientifically if you don't believe in propechy. I mean, as in conclusively prove that God exist, becouse that would require seeing God eye to eye, right?

Wait wait wait, isnt one of your arguments against evolution that we cant observe it directly? (Which is false, like already shown) Why is it different for your case? Why are you allowed to use indirect and anecdotal evidence, but when scientists do it you consider that insufficient?

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Ok, exactly why is the burden of proof on me? You or any scientist has ever proven that evolution occurs in the way that you described in the first place.

Do you argue that you dont have the burden of proof when making a claim? Evolution, the phenomenon is observable, and as you said, you're not arguing against the phenomenon. Now the theory of evolution is very consistent, well-reviewed, there are many experiments supporting the content and there is currently no competing theory that is verifiable at all. I ask you to present us with your theory of evolution and show us the experiments which support your version. Creationism as in "god did it", is not verifiable at all, or do you have any experiments that would prove god created organisms like they are?

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

For the first 150 years before the discovery of genetics, evolution ONLY relied on the similarity of species and so called "transitional fossils," wich requires belief as there is no certain way to conclusively prove, using fossils that A. species became B.

Thats why evolution 150 years before was very controversial. But with todays evidence, its widely accepted because its the most precise, consistent and verifiable explanation for the diversity of life we have today.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Yeah, of course you say anything that opposes mainstream views of evolution as "less scientifical."

No, I say that because you did not present us with a shred of evidence. So less scientifical is not even appropriate, I should have said "not scientifical at all".

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

If you critically bothered to read about the so-called evidence, such as the comparison between human and so-called ancestor ape skulls, you would realize that all of them can be conclusively proven to be either human or ape, and not transitional fossils as so far that requires blind faith and belief.

Let me say it slowly : Ape, is, no, species.

It seems more and more that you have actually no idea what you are talking about.

Humans share the exact same traits as all other apes share that no other family shares, thats why they are classified as apes, just like we share all traits that all animals share, that no other lifeform shares, just like we share all traits all organic lifeforms share that no other thing shares. Again, ape is no species, its a family of species, based on the commonalities between these species.

So what you say is complete nonsense, because you cant prove that something is either human or ape, because humans are also apes. Proving a skull is from a human automatically means its an ape skull.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Still no way to conclusively prove that humans originated from Monkeys, therefore this classification makes no sense. But good luck trying though, I'll be waiting.

Originated from monkeys? What the hell are you talking about? You have demonstratively no idea about the theory of evolution.
The classification is not even based on evolution. Its directly based on the traits all families and species share, so do you really argue that we do not share the exact same traits that all primates share? Just look up the definition of primates and check for yourself if you share the traits that are described there, you may be amazed.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Again making untestable conclusion on unproven hypothesis. Good riddance, bro. Still waiting for you to provide us with the evidence, mr ignorance.

The evidence for the traits organisms share and how we classify them by that? Are you serious?
There are many bones of ancestors which have similar traits to two or more species that currently exist, just as there are bones with traits similar to two or more species of these ancestors and so on and so on. If god only made the animals we currently have on earth, why do we find bones of extinct animals that are similar but not identical to one or more species currently alive?

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

That's what you'd like to believe, but all changes wich Darwin observed are just based on blind hypothesis that they take billions of years to occur.

How many people on this forum already told you that evolution nowhere implies to take a certain amount of time, that the current theory of evolution refers to how long certain changes in reality needed, based on the circumstances and the evidence found. If findings imply that change X needed three billion years, does that mean every other change also needs as long?

To make it clear, just because certain changes took place over billions of years doesnt mean every other change needs the exact same amount of time.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

This is an absolute lie and proven wrong by many modernday scientifical findings:

And more importantly, this lie is not part of the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

Sorry, forget the word "base." Cat or Lion, despite having huge difference(by evolutionary margin) don't display any traits that could allow us to identify them as different species.

You probably mean the domestic cat, because there are many different species of cats.
Actually no, by evolutionary margin, they dont have that huge differences, they are both part of the same family. (But huge is no objectively tangible figure without a relation like already stated the last time) All animals share also traits with animals from other species, but the classification looks at a set of traits only shared by one group. So no, by only knowing a few traits of an animal, you can easily mistake its species.

Lets play a game, I say four traits you tell me which species I am talking about.
The species I am talking about is carnivore, nocturnal, an agile climber and solitary.
And did you guessed it? Probalbly not, because these traits are shared by all Felidae (the biological family of cats). So yes, they indeed display traits that could allow us to identify them as a different species.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

It does affect, becouse evolution creates atheists. Without evolution there wouldn't be as many atheists are there are today.

Though you could argue a good person is good regardless of being atheist or not. Maybe. I dunno.

Evolution creates atheists? Couldnt you simply say that god made evolution? I dont see how evolution is relevant for metaphysics. Evolution may invalidate certain claims, like creationism, but beyond that, it has nothing to do with any metaphysical possibilities.

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

You're projecting the lies wich you spread upon me. Funny. Must be fun living under quilt, but whatever. Without Jesus you won't be getting to heaven anyway.

I may say the untruth, but I am not lying. Lying implies to intentionally tell the untruth which Im not doing.

To me it seems that you have a very incomplete understanding of biology and evolution and that your claims are based on misinterpretations and strawmans (like the "billion years" one).
But if you can actually present evidence, I am glad to examine it.

[OrNy]

Originally Posted by Kaiverrettu

I find it hilarious how locked you are in your world view to ever concider seriously investigating the matter and finding out the truth.

Ignorance is bliss, huh?

x3


And LMAO at you saying that your religion is the true one.

[Lord_Talron]

i personally met akatosh and talos, i am certain that the 9 divines is the one true religion

[RCHLNKI]

Originally Posted by 565656

The hindu gods? I think that's from India.

Whatever God Kaiverrettu will use.