do people understand my religious jargon

Author: crossed

Posts

Total: 145
Topic's author
#91
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin

scientist call plants primitive all the time. they say stuff like ferns because all it appears to be is a leaf on a stick. which is why they say it is one of the first thing to appear on the planet.









ya i know that they it is single-celled micro-organisms that was formed on life. because it is not complex. i misspoke. i am  saying that they say plants formed before animals like gorrilas and elephants and dogs cats. I am sorta wrong here there was planton and other small creatures but my point still stands.

single celled micro organism because that is as primitive as you get



then the plankton and plants were created because they are thought to not be complex.



Animals like dogs horses elephants those kinds of animals appeared because there complex


And then humans



Plants are not primitive


They have amazing health benefits. Even the ones they point out like the fern and pond muck like chlorella









Topic's author
#92
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6


alright i think we can all agree that there were plants millions of years before there were monkeys


because the first monkeys would need bananas to eat and vines to climb. so there were plants years before monkeys popped up.



these  monkeys turned into humans so if there were plants before monkeys. than when those monkey turned into humans. plants have existed millions of years before humans appeared since there was plants before monkeys evolved


so why does turmeric have the medical properties that allow it to heal a damaged human brain via 270 pathways. if there were no humans when the turmeric plant came into existed

tumeric is a plant so it existed millions of years before humans existed. so why does it have health benefits that help humans.


turmeric is a root so it probably existed millions of years before humans appeared so why does it have health benefits that heal humans.when there no humans yet. they appear millions of years later


#93
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@crossed
Again evolutionary science does not make the claim that plants are primitive nor that plants preceded animals.



Topic's author
#94
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
i was not thinking of bacteria. i was talking about creatures like dog cat . i do agree cellular creatures did exist when plants exist.

it goes to primitive to complex like i said


single cell organism because it is not complex and primitive

then 
Cyanobacteria – 2.8 billion years old considered to be the oldest animal so you are correct. bacteria because it is primitive stuff



then plankton and plants 700 millions years


then rabbits fish bear other animals

then humans 200 thousand years ago





plants are not primitive they have insane health benefits.


if humans have only existed for 200 thousand years then why do some plants that are way older then humans have medical properties that help humans. like the fern is 700 mill years old


the ferns help female humans with breast feeding problems ferns have existed for 700 million years. humans did not come about until 200 thousand years later. so how does the fern have medical properties that help humans if humans did not exist yet

#95
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@crossed
I am telling you that yoir argument is a non issue. Where is your sources are plants as a whole refered to as primitive? Where in your spirces is it claimed that complex plant life preceded complex animal life? 

Evolutionary science is not arguing either of those things. Pleaee stop strawmanning.

Topic's author
#96
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
it does not matter if some plants are considered primitive or all of them my point still stands.


Non-flowering plants like mosses, horsetails, ferns, clubmosses, ginkgos, and cycads, though often referred to as primitive





plants are not primitive they have insane health benefits.


if humans have only existed for 200 thousand years then why do some plants that are way older then humans have medical properties that help humans. like the fern is 360 mill years old





these are the plant they formed before most creatures because they claim there less complex than other creatures so it took a shorter time


the ferns help female humans with breast feeding problems ferns have existed for 360 million years. humans did not come about until 200 thousand years later. so how does the fern have medical properties that help humans if humans did not exist yet



Topic's author
#97
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
why do you think they said ferns formed before animals like bears deer and others. why do the say the single cell came before a deer in there timeline
#98
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@crossed
Non-flowering plants like mosses, horsetails, ferns, clubmosses, ginkgos, and cycads, though often referred to as primitive
In comparison to other plants not in comparison to animals. Your argument remains a non issue.

#99
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@crossed
why do you think they said ferns formed before animals like bears deer and others.
Cause and effect.

Topic's author
#100
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
were does it say that in comparison to other plants because it looks like there saying that there generally primitive
#101
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@crossed
why do the say the single cell came before a deer in there timeline
Because that is what the evidence (both fossil and genetic) supports

Topic's author
#102
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
how can the fern have medical properties that help humans if humans did not appear for another 360 mill years


ferns are 
360 million years old


humans 200 thousand


so how can ferns have properties that help humans if humans did not exist


i made this point a way back
Topic's author
#103
crossed
crossed's avatar
Debates: 62
Posts: 516
2
2
6
crossed's avatar
crossed
2
2
6
they came up with the fern and human number through genetic testing and fossils

#104
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
were does it say that in comparison to other plants because it looks like there saying that there generally primitive
Right here where it specifically singles out non-flowering plants
Non-flowering plants like mosses, horsetails, ferns, clubmosses, ginkgos, and cycads, though often referred to as primitive
I mean you provided the quote man. Primitive plants not plants are primitive. So specifically in comparison to flowering plants. Not in cimparison to animals.

#105
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@crossed
how can the fern have medical properties that help humans if humans did not appear for another 360 mill years
This is a non sequitur. You seem to be implyimg that the purpose of a fern is its medicinal properties. The purpose of a fern, if it has one, is to reproduce. Any medicinal properties are therefore entirely coincidental.

#106
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@crossed
I know what we can all agree on and that is that you have never read a word written about the ToE, or if you have you lack the intellectual capacity to understand what you've read.
#107
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@crossed
Dinosaurs.
#108
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I know what we can all agree on and that is that you have never read a word written about the ToE, or if you have you lack the intellectual capacity to understand what you've read.


Says the man who canot explain the appearance of homsapians even though he repeatedly spouts the phrase - "theory of evolution"



"we have evolved by exactly thesame process as every other animal that has ever existed on thisplanet"? 
 
  "YOU PROVE IT"!  Simply back it up.   You have claimed something that even Darwin and Wallace couldn'texplain. Explain to us all with supporting evidence  the appearance ofhumans. Just saying the words;"the theory of evolution" doesn't support what you claim. It is justa title of the proposed theory and nothing else.

Explain to us all what Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection failed to explain. Or more precise:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life),[3] published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature by Charles Darwin which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology.[4] Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. It presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution. Darwin included evidence that he had gathered on the Beagle expedition in the 1830s and his subsequent findings from research, correspondence, and experimentation.[5]



Come on you buffoon and hurry up about it!

#109
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
We all see who the ignorant buffoon is. Now go and get an education.
#110
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted
We all see who the ignorant buffoon is. 

Yes "we do" it is YOU!

So that is another failure to backup your stupid claims.

Keep em coming. I love showing you up for what you are. An empty headed bully braggart , who always goes for the low hanging fruit. 
My grandchildren ask better informed and educated questions of Christians than you ever do or could. You know Christians cannot prove there is a god but you still ask questions about their god that YOU don't even  believe in yourself. Your buffoonery knows no bounds.

You know it impossible for Christians to prove a negative and that all of their beliefs are TOTALLY faith based, but still you bang out the same old claptrap questions asking for proof that YOU KNOW is never going to come. You are a bully and a coward who runs away when challenged on your own fkn claims. You should be banned.

Come on , "WE" are still waiting for you to support this bullshit claim;
"we have evolved by exactly the same process as every other animal that has ever existed on this planet"? 
 
  "YOU PROVE IT"!  Simply back it up.   You have claimed something that even Darwin and Wallace couldn't explain. Explain to us all with supporting evidence  the appearance of humans


WHAT ABOUT THIS that you have left unsupported also;

--> @ disgusted prior to the middle ages the word god didn't exist,     
 
And you can show us all your evidence for that claim can you? Let's seeit then.

#111
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @Stephen--> @disgusted

I'm not sure I understand this feud you two have been having on so many threads of late. It seems like disgusted once said humans evolved just like everything else did and Stephen is hung up on the semantics saying "nuh uh not 'just like' everything else. We didn't evolve into trees or frogs or emus all of which have their own evolutionary line! So there!

Am I misunderstanding that?
#112
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
Your pride in your willful ignorance is amusing. Refusing to educate yourself is a crying shame. A person, you, who doesn't understand the word theory is in no position to discuss the ToE but especially a person who thinks that Darwin proposed the ToE is just too ignorant to discuss anything.
Christians shouldn't be challenged on their nonsense because they have no way to defend their nonsense, what sort of fool proposes such an ignorant idea?
Get an education, google origins of the word god. Education is readily available in this cyber age, even you can do it, google the ToE while your at it because everything you have written in regards to it is ignorance personified. The oxygen you are wasting could be put to better use I'm sure.
#113
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I have no idea what he is raving about, he is seriously ignorant concerning the ToE and outright refuses to learn anything about it.
#114
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
Exactly what is it that you are arguing? When you say humans evolved by exactly the same process exactly what do you mean? Do you just mean a process of adaptation determined by natural selection?
#115
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
That is evolution.As simple as it gets.
#116
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
And Stephen are you arguing that there is some reason to suspect that humans did not evolve through a process of adaptation determined by natural selection?
#117
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted
Christians shouldn't be challenged on their nonsense because they have no way to defend their nonsense, what sort of fool proposes such an ignorant idea?
 What are you on about you clown? I didn't say that Christians shouldn't be challenged. What I am saying to YOU is that CONTINUOUSLY and REPEATEDLY asking for proof that YOU KNOW damn well isn't coming makes you sound like the petulant child that keeps asking mommy for sweets when she's has said NO a billion times.. You are a FKN bully and a braggart who knows absolutely FK ALL!


Get an education

Why don't you explain it all to us. You said that you "always support your claims " and have failed on the last three claims that you have made. But insist and demand others support their own claims.



google the ToE

I don't have to. I read it DARWIN'S theory of Evolution over 40 years ago. I have read a few other theories about evolution too. The latest (but not new)  is that we come from water mammals, one which Attenborough is now said to subscribe to. 

We have evolved by exactly the same process as every other animal that has ever existed on this planet"?  

  "YOU PROVE IT"!  Simply back it up. 

#118
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Post 117, do you see the problem?
#119
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
Post 117 does not actually clear up my question to him from post 116 it merely challenges you. In regards to my question I think I will wait until he addresses it for himself but thank you for taking the time.
#120
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
This feud you two have been having on so many threads of late.

I am sick of this bully demanding proof and evidence and citations of others to support their claims when this FKN out right bully never ever supports his claims while demanding others do.


It seems like disgusted once said humans evolved just like everything else did

That's right. The buffoon made an outrageous claim that I know he cannot back up,  but, like he insists of others, I want him to prove his fKN claim . This was his ill thought out claim as ALL of his FKN claims are:

--> @disgusted We have evolved by exactly the same process as every other animal that has ever existed on this planet"?  

This simply isn't true  as you have so rightly shown. For instance an alligator one of the oldest creatures living -  is still an alligator, it has not "evolved" into anything like a human or a fKN monkey for that matter. But the resident bullying buffoon will have us believe -  without evidence -  that  " We have evolved exactly the same process as every other animal that has ever existed on this planet"?  I want the clown to prove it. 

 We didn't evolve into trees or frogs or emus all of which have their own evolutionary line! 
Which is not  then,  " exactly by the same evolutionary process" as the resident bonehead buffon claims. I want him to support his claims.

Such as this stupid statement:


--> @disgusted Everyone lives in the same reality,
 
Another Profound statement from our resident philosopher, physicist,scientist,naturalist, geologist, archaeologist, theologist and all round egghead. Now is all he has to do is produce the evidence to support his claim.  

For instance:how does the reality of  a bushman from Papua New Guinea compare to the reality of  Hollywood star multi millionaire George Clooney and his multimillionaire wife  Amal Clooney the British barrister  who specialising in international law and human rights and who jointly own over 30 properties worth billions?
 
I am still waiting, for a answer . But he just ignores and runs away crying to mods that I am picking on him while he is forever bullying Christians who simply cannot answer faith based questions on their beliefs. He goes for the easy target because he's a fucking bully and a coward who should be banned.