quote:

Originally posted by ddmel:

Come on, these discussions are pointless until everyone aknowledges that the vast majority of biblical tales are literally fictitious.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. There are substantial and (apparently) growing numbers of christians who are bible literalists. Are you saying it's pointless discussing anything with them?

Actually, you're probably right, it is pointless discussing anything with bible literalists.

Thanks for the replies mr woolf, but can you please answer this for me as i think you forgot it.

Presumably god punished the snake and all of its descendents (a weird thing in itself). So which species of snake around today was the one actually punished. Was it the python? In which case, what did all the other species do wrong.

Or, are you saying that all the many and varied species of snakes today are being punished as they are all descendents of that original snake?

quote:

Originally posted by ddmel:
Come on, these discussions are pointless until everyone aknowledges that the vast majority of biblical tales are literally fictitious.

Trouble is, Wolfy doesn't.
I would agree that a 'discussion' is pointless as the only answer is 'that is what it says in my book so it must be right' however wrong, stupid or illogical it is.
However, when the likes of Katestwinsister are around, there is a great deal of point to highlight both just how absurd the bible is and just how unpleasant some of its advocates are.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyT2:
Thanks for the replies mr woolf, but can you please answer this for me as i think you forgot it.

Presumably god punished the snake and all of its descendents (a weird thing in itself). So which species of snake around today was the one actually punished. Was it the python? In which case, what did all the other species do wrong.

Or, are you saying that all the many and varied species of snakes today are being punished as they are all descendents of that original snake?

Thing is, Andy, I really don't know for certain, but I guess that it has to be something along the lines of the latter?
Of course, we shouldn't discount the possibility that God did, indeed, curse other creatures also, but their misdemeanours weren't particularly noteworthy in the way which this first event was. It's kind of like "Who was the second man to set foot on the Moon?"

Here's some homework for you:
How many types of dogs / wolves / dingoes / curs / whatever, do you reckon there are in the world today?

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by ddmel:
Come on, these discussions are pointless until everyone aknowledges that the vast majority of biblical tales are literally fictitious.

Trouble is, Wolfy doesn't.
I would agree that a 'discussion' is pointless as the only answer is 'that is what it says in my book so it must be right' however wrong, stupid or illogical it is.
However, when the likes of Katestwinsister are around, there is a great deal of point to highlight both just how absurd the bible is and just how unpleasant some of its advocates are.

What I'm trying to do here is to save your miserable, sinful sorry ass from an eternal roasting.
I think that you realise that all of this evolution carp which you promote as unequivocal truth is actually shot full of holes like your grandad's underpants, and you're frightened because you can't allow yourself to believe the alternative, as it offends your personal image of your own self importance.
Seems like you're very ready to say "It's all down to evolution", in the same way which you mock Christians as saying "Goddidit", and yet when challenged to expand upon how, exactly, evolution happened in this case or that, you run for cover.
You would do yourself a greater service by acknowledging that the theory of evolution doesn't explain everything; and the reason for that is that it is simply made up nonsense: A lie initiated by Satan, and perpetuated by his henchmen to the present day.

quote:

Originally posted by ddmel:
Believers : The bible is symbolic! Of what? How do I know?

Non believers : The bible is symbolic! Of what? How do I know?

Even when I believed in god I never bought the idea of a real garden of eden, or a real serpent that could talk, or that the world was created in 7 days. Come on, these discussions are pointless until everyone aknowledges that the vast majority of biblical tales are literally fictitious.

So, let me get this: The only instructions and information which Christians have are contained in this book, right? And it would allow every body to be much more effective Christians if we all accepted that the book is just made up stuff?
No, I really don't see your logic, somehow?

quote:

Originally posted by ddmel:
Believers : The bible is symbolic! Of what? How do I know?

Non believers : The bible is symbolic! Of what? How do I know?

Even when I believed in god I never bought the idea of a real garden of eden, or a real serpent that could talk, or that the world was created in 7 days. Come on, these discussions are pointless until everyone aknowledges that the vast majority of biblical tales are literally fictitious.

Sorry, I just read your post again, and I now think that I see where you are coming from: Your point is that the discussions on this forum are what actually count in life, and it makes it easier to come to agreement if you assume that the Bible is wholly incorrect?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
.. as it offends your personal image of your own self importance.
.

why is it christians always do this?

It's called transference or somethign isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Thing is, Andy, I really don't know for certain, but I guess that it has to be something along the lines of the latter?

ah right, so all the different snakes today 'evolved' from that one snake.

Isn't evolution marvellous.

quote:

Originally posted by AndyT2:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Thing is, Andy, I really don't know for certain, but I guess that it has to be something along the lines of the latter?

ah right, so all the different snakes today 'evolved' from that one snake.

Isn't evolution marvellous.

What has colloquially become known as evolution is marvellous, so long as you realise what its limitations are, and what it can and can't do.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
What has colloquially become known as evolution is marvellous, so long as you realise what its limitations are, and what it can and can't do.

well, yes, and that's where the boffins come in.

All that irreducable complexity and the like. So, is there anything out there that can't be explained by 'evolution' then?

Mr woolf, what I'm saying is this : There's no point in having these discussions if everyone isn't at least agreed on what is being discussed. You take the bible stories literally (I presume, correct me if I've got it wrong) and the people you're debating with on this thread not only don't agree with that, but they don't believe in any of it, literal or otherwise. To me that sounds like a recipe for an everlasting and unproductive squabble. You're assuming that I'd like everyone to assume that the bible is wholly incorrect, but I'm not. It's fine for you to believe that what the bible says is literal and correct, there's no problem there. I happen to believe that they are man made stories which stand for something else and aren't to be taken literally. In fact, I think even atheists ought to study the bible and try to find out what is really being said in it. That's my view, anyway. It might be more productive to have this kind of debate with people who at least believe in god, rather than people who couldn't disagree with you more.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
I think that you realise that all of this evolution carp which you promote as unequivocal truth is actually shot full of holes like your grandad's underpants

Name 5 holes please. Any 5 will do, which shouldn't be too difficult if it's shot full of them. C'mon, give it your best shot and show us that the holes you mention aren't just between your ears.

This thing about Rocket Scientist being a troll comes up fairly regularly.

He's not a troll, because he sincerely believes what he posts. No-one could maintain such a consistent position over such a long time if they were merely a troll.

Because he is sincere he deserves the respect of a fair debate, despite how much I or anyone else disagrees with his position.

quote:

Originally posted by Asarualim:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
I think that you realise that all of this evolution carp which you promote as unequivocal truth is actually shot full of holes like your grandad's underpants

Name 5 holes please. Any 5 will do, which shouldn't be too difficult if it's shot full of them. C'mon, give it your best shot and show us that the holes you mention aren't just between your ears.

I've got to get some work done today, so let's just do the one for now: Like, as a "For instance" I refer you to the bit about the snake evolving from a leggy lizard, as debated with the so - called Free Thinker.
What evolutionary advantage would it be for a lizard to have slightly shorter legs than other lizards? There might be some advantage to being a snake, compared to being a lizard?
Are there?
But each step between being a lizard and being a snake should show some kind of progressive advantage, as well, if I understand the theory correctly?
Or maybe I really don't understand it at all?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

If you're truly interested in the answer to this, I would recommend 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins, if you can bring yourself to read anything by him!

It goes into a great deal of detail about why tiny incremental changes like the one you're discussing might occur.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
What evolutionary advantage would it be for a lizard to have slightly shorter legs than other lizards? There might be some advantage to being a snake, compared to being a lizard?
Are there?
But each step between being a lizard and being a snake should show some kind of progressive advantage, as well, if I understand the theory correctly?
Or maybe I really don't understand it at all?

These are holes in ToE are they?
These look like questions from someone who has already been told the answer, has the opportunity to find out, but chooses to stick his fingers in his ears and go 'nar, nar nar, I'm not listening'.
How about some real 'holes'?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

But each step between being a lizard and being a snake should show some kind of progressive advantage, as well, if I understand the theory correctly?

Back in the 1960s I'm sure you remember the fuss about thalidomide - a drug given to pregnant women to alleviate morning sickness that caused dreadful abnormalities in the foetuses by monkeying with the cell division messaging system. Tell me, were those abnormalities gradual or virtually instantaneous? It's a rhetorical question. It's entirely possible to mess with DNA to change expression of characteristics in a very short time scale with no transitions. Dawkins argues for micro steps in DNA, but a change to a single gene can cause massive changes in phenotypal expression.

quote:

Or maybe I really don't understand it at all?

I would guess you don't, but understanding the theory doesn't guarantee an immediate explanation for every phenotype in existence so I hope you're not going to bash that strawman.

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
What evolutionary advantage would it be for a lizard to have slightly shorter legs than other lizards? There might be some advantage to being a snake, compared to being a lizard?
Are there?
But each step between being a lizard and being a snake should show some kind of progressive advantage, as well, if I understand the theory correctly?
Or maybe I really don't understand it at all?

These are holes in ToE are they?
These look like questions from someone who has already been told the answer, has the opportunity to find out, but chooses to stick his fingers in his ears and go 'nar, nar nar, I'm not listening'.
How about some real 'holes'?

Everybody around here is telling me that the ToE is complete in it's state of excellence, and can explain everything since time began, but no one is telling me what happened to the lizards' legs.
Can you see why I'm sceptical?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
Everybody around here is telling me that the ToE is complete in it's state of excellence, and can explain everything since time began,

Go on then someone who says that. No scientist let alone an evolutionary scientist would ever say anything of the sort.

quote:

but no one is telling me what happened to the lizards' legs.
Can you see why I'm sceptical?

Skeptical doesn't come close. You utterly reject evidence of anything older than 6500 years.
To understand lizard-snake evolution requires assumption of a time frame orders of magnitude longer than 6500 years.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
I think that you realise that all of this evolution carp which you promote as unequivocal truth is actually shot full of holes like your grandad's underpants, and you're frightened because you can't allow yourself to believe the alternative, as it offends your personal image of your own self importance.

If convincing evidence pointed to an alternative, any alternative, I would happily support that position. Theists on the other hand never accept a change in position.
My personal image of my self-importance is, I suspect, rather less than yours. I am but a speck. I exist but for a blink in time.

quote:

Seems like you're very ready to say "It's all down to evolution", in the same way which you mock Christians as saying "Goddidit", and yet when challenged to expand upon how, exactly, evolution happened in this case or that, you run for cover.
You would do yourself a greater service by acknowledging that the theory of evolution doesn't explain everything; and the reason for that is that it is simply made up nonsense: A lie initiated by Satan, and perpetuated by his henchmen to the present day.

LOL how does this not exactly characterize biblical 'explanations'?

quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:
I wonder how hard you are looking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake#Evolution
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070326-lizard-snakes.html

That from a simple Google search.

Very interesting, but as with so many of these headline grabbing claims, the article never really delivers. It still doesn't answer the question: Neither the question which I asked, nor the question which it asks itself.