This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
A Question for All of you Climate People (Now about Other Stuff!)
Return to board index
Post by
Queggy
Well, this is because human's aren't necessarily better than all the other animals in the world.
What? Humans are easily the best and most powerful "animal" on Earth. Look at what we've done and then look at what animals have done. The only thing that really poses a threat to Humans are Humans themselves.
Edit - I don't know if you saw my edit in my last post, but if not you may want to.
Post by
Sagramor
Well, this is because human's aren't necessarily better than all the other animals in the world.
What? Humans are easily the best and most powerful "animal" on Earth. Look at what we've done and then look at what animals have done. The only thing that really poses a threat to Humans are Humans themselves.
Edit - I don't know if you saw my edit in my last post, but if not you may want to.
Once again. Humans are the best when? In what scenario? If we put a naked human in the middle of the desert with a few "Oasis stops" in the long long road and a camel in the same place, who do you think would win?
Post by
Queggy
Sagramor, that scenario is in the camel's natural environment. Let's say we put a human and a camel in NYC and they ahve to race to the other side. Who do you think would win? Also, for the desert scene, what's stopping the human from grabbing the camel, jumping on it's back and hightailing it out of there.
Post by
Sagramor
Sagramor, that scenario is in the camel's natural environment. Let's say we put a human and a camel in NYC and they ahve to race to the other side. Who do you think would win? Also, for the desert scene, what's stopping the human from grabbing the camel, jumping on it's back and hightailing it out of there.
The camel would stop the human. Also, NYC isn't a natural scenario, but let's go with that. The camel would win the race, he'd just run trough the crowds, who would try to get away from him. The slower human would(other then being humiliated for being naked) not have so much ease running trough the crowds.
Post by
Queggy
The Human could stop the Camel. How do you think people started riding camels in the first place.
Moving to the NYC scenario. You're telling me a camel that has never been out of it's nice peaceful desert will keep it's head in the hustle and bustle of the city? You're telling me it won't get lost or run over as it tries to run across the street? Also, the human would be smart enough to flag down a taxi and zoom across. By the way, I used the idea of NYC, because it was what I thought would be more of most humans "natural environment" these days.
Post by
mudfish
Post by
Sagramor
The Human could stop the Camel. How do you think people started riding camels in the first place.
Moving to the NYC scenario. You're telling me a camel that has never been out of it's nice peaceful desert will keep it's head in the hustle and bustle of the city? You're telling me it won't get lost or run over as it tries to run across the street? Also, the human would be smart enough to flag down a taxi and zoom across. By the way, I used the idea of NYC, because it was what I thought would be more of most humans "natural environment" these days.
It's not natural. A natural human enviroment would be a grass valley, I don't know. But as to the camel riding thing.
One
human can't overcome a wild camel. Now, if it's a camel raised by humans to be ridden, it's completely different.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
But queggy, you're just arguing now that a human is better adapted to live in his natural environment, and a camel is more adapted to live in his natural environment. You're sorta just agreeing with me.
Yes, but my main point of that is that humans can live anywhere. They can create their natural environment anyplace they want. A camel on the other hand can not make a desert in a city.
It's not natural. A natural human environment would be a grass valley, I don't know. But as to the camel riding thing. One human can't overcome a wild camel. Now, if it's a camel raised by humans to be ridden, it's completely different.
Look at Bootspurrs comment below yours for the answer to part of your statement. A bee's antural environment is honeycomb, but that is manufactured by them. And one human
can
overcome a camel. All it has to do is build a trap, lure it in, and then tame the camel.
Edit - It contained a few factual and logical errors
Such as?
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
Most of what you say are factual/logical errors are opinions, so we can't really discuss that.
I also like how you argue that humans can shape the environment to make it more suitable for themselves. Going along this vein and bringing it back to global warming, you said you didn't believe that humans have an appreciable effect on the environment. However, the mere fact that humans are able to shape their own natural environments (to an extent) proves otherwise.
What I was saying was that we affect the environment a little, just not as much as people probably think we do.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
I still don't see any problem with the specific quotes you listed naming them factual or logical errors.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
This isn't logical. On the site, it even says that microevolution is the building blocks for macroevolution (which is what it wants to discuss), so by discussing microevolution you aren't "changing the subject" you are making a natural progression to what you are trying to prove.
Sorry about that one, I didn't see that earlier. That one I suppose could be in error. (Saying they are just trying to change the subject I mean, not the evolution is false/true.)
This isn't factual. He could have said that nothing dug up out of the ground has ever proven the theory of evolution, but nearly everything related to the theory that was dug out of the ground supports it (fossils, etc).Well, I have never really seen any fossils that supports Evolution. It seems to me that scientists find some bones from one animal and some from another right next to each other and say that it was one animal. Then they try to fit it together and it just look all wrong.
All "evidence" that supports the bible is anything but scientific. "Science is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how physical reality works. Its purview is the portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook" <- that's from wikipedia, but it's still correct.
Hmm, discussing this would take us back to the Flood which I believe is scientific evidence.
Without debating whether the "messiah" mentioned in the old testiment has come yet or not - which is completely up to interpretation - It is factually innacurate to say that the Bible is 100% accurate in predicting the future. Whatever was going on there in revelations sure as heck didn't happen yet, and interpretations of prophecies is the easiest things to fudge. If my friend predicts that some time in the future, "there will be a man who will rise to the greatest of heights, then plummet down to his destruction", I can interpret that however I like - it's so ambiguous. It's not a strong argument, and it doesn't mean that my friend is a prophet.
I never said that Armageddon/the Second Coming has happened yet. I believe it's still to come. But there are some prophecies that point specifically to Jesus and no one else in Isiah. Also, if I can find it, I'll quote some other prophecies for you that sure seem to describe our present day world situation.
Edit - I couldn't find the specific passage I was looking for, but you might want to check out
this
sight.
Note - Once again I haven't had time to look over everything they say, so I'm not sure if I agree 100% with what they say.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
Ok.. this isn't really a good argument, and you probably know that.
Really? I'm just saying, it seems to me like they are forcing bones together and hoping they can say it's a link between species.
People writing about a flood in history books isn't scientific evidence of a flood. If there is scientific evidence (found in excavations, land formations, etc) that there was a large flood in history, it isn't scientific evidence that it was a flood that wiped out every living land animal that wasn't on a wooden ship the size of a city.
Well, already admitted that there was a large flood, but you say it wasn't as large as I think it was. But once again, what about fossils of fish found way up on top of gigantic mountains? That would be scientific evidence right? Also, the Ark wasn't the size of a city. It's measurements were 300 cubits long, a breadth of 50 cubits, and a height of thirty cubits. That's not the size of a city.
As I said, prophecies are ambiguous by nature. If Jesus didn't fulfill those prophecies, someone else in the last 2000 years probably would have. If they didn't, people would have interpreted the prophecies in different lights so that they could fit. Even on the site you've given there, many of the prophecies that were "fulfilled" have more than one interpretation. That's why I said that it isn't a "strong argument" as your first site claimed.
I can see this is one argument we won't be able to discuss. I believe that the prophecies in Isaiah fit only Jesus, and you believe they won't. I jsut don't see any way we can really discuss this point. Prophecy is a tricky thing.
Hey Queggy, I just want to take the time to let you know that I really enjoy debating this with you. It's really difficult sometimes to find someone who truly believes in the things you do and still wants to debate using logic and reason rather than just stating things without thinking.
Thanks. :)
I think that this is probably good for you too, because you're getting to know the other side of the debate more familiarly. Maybe eventually you'll be able to fit in some of the scientific theories that make the most sense to you into your belief structure.
Know you're enemy huh? I guess the better I understand the way you think, the better I can refute it. Of course, the best person would be one who had believed in evolution and then become a Christian. Hmm, that reminds me of something. If I can find it, I'll edit my post and link it for you.
Edit -
Here's
what i was looking for. I don't know if they have some of the videos or not on youtube unfortunately. (Obviously you aren't going to want to buy them.)
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
And as for someone who believes in evolution then becomes a Christian... I wouldn't be surprised if it's already happened quite a few times. Thinking evolution is true, and being a rational human being, doesn't limit someone from agreeing with or believing in many of the doctrines or teachings of the bible. It just means that alot of the more incredible things said in the bible may not be taken by those people as hard fact - just stories to interpret their own way.
Notice I said
had
believed. In other words they no longer believe in evolution. One of the guys in that last link I posted is like that.
You're misinterpreting my point. It's not that a flood that happened in the past may or may not be really big. It's that it is not scientifically possible that sometime in the last 10000 years, a flood caused water to cover all continents and land-masses over the entire world, and then somehow receded back to the oceans we have today. There's just too much water to account for there, and where could it have gone? On top of that, I only said that the ark was the size of a city because I was trying to convey to you that there is no way that a wooden ship that size would be able to fit that many animals, especially including all the provisions they would need to take care of them. If you give the explanation: "God made it possible", then you are agreeing that it still isn't Scientific Evidence.
In the Bible it says that previously there had never been rain, and that the water seeped up from the ground. During the account of the flood it says that the fountains in the deep places all burst open. So that would account for all the water. Maybe before the Flood there had never been oceans. In Revelations when describing the second Earth it says there will be no oceans. So maybe God is modeling the second Earth on what the first one should have been?
Also, I don't really think of you as my enemy, I was just using that saying. Don't worry!
/huggles
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.