>Anon, I know you're really depressed, what with all your AIDS and everything, but there's an answer through Christ!
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
>>25724114
/thread
>>25724087
Retarded horse is retarded
>>25724087
I already found an answer, now bag up the booze I bought, if ya need me I'll be at the bottom of ghastly gorge.
>>25724087
Really?
What did he say about AIDS? I mean, I can't imagine it came up much during the 750s Ad urbe condita in Roman Judea.
>>25724087
Christfag here, derphorse would certainly be a believer.
>>25725733
Of course she would, she's retarded.
>>25725750
She's child like, not retarded. Clumsy, obvious ocular disability.
>>25725750
>>25725733
More like Taylor Swift fan tho
>>25725783
I don't get it though.
>>25724087
But i have already!
>>25725782
I wanna fuck Rarity dead
>>25725810
I wanna fuck them all dead.
>>25724087
But fucking Jesus is what gave me aids.
>>25725676
Read The Book of Arnold and you'll know
>>25725771
>>25725829
Fair, I dunno, it's not a statement that other christfags are retarded, just that I could see Derpy being a believer.
>>25725827
That sounds like, urgh, Apocrypha. Are you going Catholic on me?
Or worse, abandoning Nicean Christianity completely?
I think I'll just stick with cocaine
>>25725846
It's the successor to The Book of Mormon.
>>25725880
So yeah, non-Nicene. You can go hang out with the Arian Christians and Unitarians.
>>25725823
>>25725750
Euphorics:1
Christfags:0
>>25725845
Why believe in a diety on faith when their goddesses move the heavenly bodies right in front of them, though?
>>25725861
Are youpositive?
>>25725960
I mean if it were this universe.
As far as Christfags and retardation, realistically speaking what's more retarded, intelligent design, or nothing exploding into something?
>>25726018
>realistically speaking what's more retarded, intelligent design, or nothing exploding into something?
Both sound pretty retarded.
>>25725960
You mean that same "goddess" that couldn't do shit to an over-sized cicada or magic jizz? Besides, a dozens unicorns did that shit long before her
>>25726035
Exactly, that's why it's always silly when people scoff at one or the other.
>>25725960
Why is it that it's always the most cancerous posters that post lel reaction images?
>>25726018
Intelligent design was a failed movement to counteract the teaching of evolutionary biology. Nothing more.
>nothing exploding into something.
Anon, that's not how it works, it started as a singularity that some theoretical theorist proposed could have come from the death of another universe, among other leading theories. I'd suggest reading up on the subject before falsely labeling it.
>>25726074
>it started as a singularity
Which came from what?
>that some theoretical theorist proposed could have come from the death of another universe
Which was created by what?
>I'd suggest reading up on the subject before falsely labeling it.
Oh I have, and as far back as you can go, no one know's where everything came from at the start. So, you're saying nothing turned into something, or something came from something you don't yet know or understand. I just attribute it to intelligent design, I'm not saying I'm objectively right or you're wrong, I'm saying to look at someone's belief (and that's what you hold, a belief) and judge them on it when you yourself can't explain it, is laughable. No one has seen, felt, or knows the matter of fact truth.
>>25726098
Some things just make people uncomfortable to accept, like the possibility that there is some master engineer behind this entire universe. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, idk. But when I look at the structure of, say, the human eye, it's hard for me not to believe there was some intent and that didn't just happen like that.
>>25726018
First, you're conflating evolution with the big bang.
Second, both positions aren't at all similar. The fundamental Christians position is "it happened like this old book said it did". The science position is "this is what happened so far as concluded from facts and evidence. We're not sure what the rest is yet but lets learn more and try to figure out, not just throw our hands up and say it's magic"
>>25726132
Fair, but it's still a belief, that's what I'm getting at. Again not saying it's right or wrong for anyone to believe anything, moreso it's wrong to scoff and hold people in low regard because of said belief.
>>25726018
Intelligent design has nothing to do with the big bang.
They're entirely different subjects.
Anyway, the singularity origin of the big bang is from extrapolating backwards beyond 10(to the power of−11) seconds. As to its origin, it's not determined. It could be an unmoved mover, or a quantum fluctuation (or there may be no difference, with the unmoved mover being a Boltzmann brain.)
In either case,when life developed recently, around 4 billion years ago, things are a lot more easily studied, With Abiogenesis, which I must still stress has nothing to do with Intelligent Design either.
Okay, the theory of Evolution roughly describes (in layman's terms) that specific forms of life become diversified by random genetic mutation. Those mutations which make a species better suited to its environment are more likely to be passed on, since the mutated individual is more likely to reach maturity, mate, and survive.
Two strains of a certain species, with different adaptations, may still thrive, but in different ways. Over successive generations, with further mutations and adaptations, the two strains may become so different that they can no longer produce viable offspring. Making them different species.
Intelligent Design claims that instead of this system of mutation, adaptation, and diversification, a designer (typically a god, and almost always the Judeo-Christian God of their denomination) created all species exactly as they are now.
>>25726018
Intelligent design is retarded. Sentient and intelligent beings are creative. The universe works through logic and patterns. A sentient being would have made the universe a lot more interesting if it had created us.
>>25726236
Unless the God is an asshole.
>>25726231
There's no evidence adaptation is prohibited in terms of intelligent design, that's just made up by you for some reason. Furthermore your claims on singularity origin still doesn't answer the real question of how these possibilities even exist. They are, and likely will be forever, just theories. Atheism is faitheism, they're beliefs. Just like anything else.
As far as evolution is concerned, I still have yet to see any substantial evidence supporting the theory. Lots of people claim DNA links, but we also have DNA links to bananas, others claim fossil findings, yet the bible even describes great beasts that lived in the past.
>>25726236
Why does it work though logic and patterns though? You don't find this universe interesting? You honestly base your opinion on intelligent design off how interesting YOU find this universe? I find this universe fascinating.
>>25726013
HIV positive
>>25726270
Are you American or something?
>>25726308
No idea what that has to do with anything lol, let me say nice meme in advance?
>>25726270
I'd been going on the definition given here: http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Natural Selection is the process of adaptations causing speciation.
If Intelligent Design is an alternate theory to Natural Selection, then the adaptations cannot give rise to speciation according to Intellligent Design.
As to what occurred during that first microsecond of the universe, yeah it's unlikely we'll ever truly know. But we'll learn a lot more about the universe by studying it than by sitting back.
I confess I'm agnostic, but if there is a creator, I am certain that he would not create such a marvel as the universe, and then fine tune it, ignoring the systems he has set in place.
>>25726345
That description isn't necessarily accurate, again, even in the bible mistakes lead to mistakes, until they are learned and adapted from, even when using animals as analogies. It's easy based on the common believer to overlook such things and just claim God did this, God did that, but really God laid the groundwork and then people did everything.
Also, learned from isn't obviously, but may warrant explanation, the animal making direct intelligent decisions based on certain stimuli, but rather the continued shaping, just like us, to overcome forms of adversity. This is adaptation, changes in breeding, Genesis states very quickly that the animals were created and finished including all after their kind, which means the basis of adaptation is guaranteed. We see this based in our own species, again we observe and breed. There's no "missing link" we haven't seen one thing turn into something else, we haven't seen fossils of half creatures, we can argue Neanderthals, we can argue mishapen humans based on mishapen humans we see today. It's difficult to explain and I'm not very good at it, I implore you, not as an attempt to proselytize, but really just as an attempt to let you see that's it's true, as it says the different forms of creatures are made, whether land base, sea, air, plant, etc, are formed and all after their kind. That's insanely important and very overlooked as it screams, shit changes yo. Shit IS going to change yo.
>I am certain that he would not create such a marvel as the universe, and then fine tune it
Why not? From my beliefs, this is education, things need to change, concepts need to be put forth, people need to learn, both physically and mentally. From your point of view, you may see it an inefficient, just jamming knowledge into people's brains, from another point of view it's one of the best ways to learn, as we only learn when there are clear unknowns.
>>25726480
Fun fact. Polar Bears are an example of something turning into something else.
From examining mitochondrial DNA, Scientists have determined that Polar Bears diverged from the Brown Bears. Fossils show the teeth of the polar bear adapting, becoming distinct from the brown bear around ten to twenty thousand years ago. Or does this fall into the vaguely defined "after their kind"? If so, can you explain exactly what you mean by that phrase.
As for why not interfere, because the universe is so great, so marvellous. The genetic code produces amazing things... why ignore it and make something else from prima materia.
If our Intelligent Designer was God, surely he would know the end of all things. Why could he not design a system that would create creation, rather than acting as a demiurge and artisan.
I agree with Henry Drummond. Trying to fit God into the gaps of scientific knowledge does him a disservice.
Literally no one in the west outside of the US is so religious crazy. In Europe the church at did science since the middle aged instead of fucking around with stupid stuff like Intelligent design or creationism.
That's what you get when you let protestants have their own country.
Get it together.
>>25726270
>As far as evolution is concerned, I still have yet to see any substantial evidence supporting the theory.
If you want evidence that you can see within a lifetime, look at bacteria. If you expose them to antibiotics most of them will die at first and then develop immunity to it in a few days. That's the reason why people are told not to use antibiotics indiscriminately.
For longer timescales, look at the the theory that bird evolved from dinosaurs, which has supporting evidence. There are fossils of an species of dinosaurs that indicate the presence of something similar to feathers. It's called Sinosauropteryx if you want to look it up.
>>25726480
>we haven't seen one thing turn into something else
Because the longer it takes the organism to reproduce, the longer it takes for it to happen, and since most of the animals we can see with our eyes take years to do that, you see no difference.
>we haven't seen fossils of half creatures
It doesn't work like that. It's a very gradual thing. See the paradox of the heap for a good analogy. If you have a million grains of sand and consider that a heap, and then you take just one grain out, is that still a heap? Yes, it looks the same. If you take another one out, it's still a heap? Yeah, it still looks the same. You can keep taking grains out one by one until you end up with half of the grains, and you'll only notice the difference when you compare what you have with the original heap.
Regarding the Big Bang, consider God presents the same problems (where did he came from?) but introduces more of his own (if he's omnipotent, why makes us suffer? why fool around when he could have easily made everything perfect from the start?)
>>25726623
You can guarantee this? Show me how.
>>25726622
After their kind. I know it seems like a copout, but it's right in Genesis, right at the start, bears are bears, they can interbreed and adapt just like anything else. We even see polar bear / brown bear hybrids.
Basically, after thier kind means, the framework was created for all creatures that live here, and those after their kind, which means those after their specific makeup at that time. It means stuff is going to change and adapt, even though the creatures started from one specific point, they are created to undergo alteration, as we have seen, against adversity. Sometimes not even with specific adversity, just for optimization. It specifically notes them because God takes note of them.
>Why could he not design a system that would create creation, rather than acting as a demiurge and artisan.
I don't understand, are you saying a system that could create the ability to create other things? We already have it. Or are you talking from basic scratch, summing up the ability to just whisk things into existence?
>Trying to fit God into the gaps of scientific knowledge does him a disservice.
I agree too, we can't hope to understand every facet.
>>25726692
Again, that falls into adaptation in terms of bacteria, and again, adaptation is not prohibited in intelligent design. Same with birds and what not. Besides new evidence shows a lot of "dinosaurs" were feathered to begin with. The Jurassic Park idea is borderline slayed.
>Where did God come from
That's really one of those things that's makes me say, it doesn't make sense to take offense or look down on people for their beliefs. God has always been. From an atheist outlook, the existence has always been, at least from what they can tell, something obviously created something that made something, whether random or not, no matter how far you go back, something had to be to give existence to what we hold now.
>>25725771
She's Forrest Gump "retarded". The writers know better than to have her go full-retard.
ugh, this entire thread
>>25724087
yes, derpy, take advantage of anon's condition to gather revinue for your church.
what a great pony you are.
truly, an example to us all.
>>25726018
it's not nothing exploding into something, it's something unknown exploding into something.
whether you call that thing god or not, who cares.
also the bible on the first page says that the earth was created before the stars existed.
christfags and retardation (or maybe just plain ignorance) go hand in hand
>>25726098
>>25726161
i suppose you both respect schizophrenics in the same way you respect religions?
>>25726114
oh come on even the most accessible of documentaries will tell you about how eyes could have evolved
and besides that, it's a lot more comforting to believe there's an omnipotent deity that loves you who created the universe
i'm all over your tricky mind games. i'm ON TOP of them.
>>25726236
that's dumb, you're dumb, why would god/gods think the same way as we do?
>>25726270
>There's no evidence adaptation is prohibited in terms of intelligent design, that's just made up by you for some reason.
'all creatures equal and forever' or something like that
>Furthermore your claims on singularity origin still doesn't answer the real question of how these possibilities even exist.
absolutely correct
>Atheism is faitheism, they're beliefs. Just like anything else.
don't try to normalise your stupidity on me.
most scientists are agnostic for obvious reasons. like the ones you just pointed out.
>>25726692
Continuing
>if he's omnipotent, why makes us suffer?
Why make a child when you know it will cause you suffering in some form, and you know you introduce them to world where they can potentially suffer? Oddly, we have the ability to do what God does, create life. And take life for that matter. This is a lesson that ties into.
>why fool around when he could have easily made everything perfect from the start?
He already did that, heaven, angels, none of the concepts. All things taken into account, angels are technically horribly naive, they wouldn't understand what we understand or even think on the same level. Why WOULD he create a perfect Garden of Eden just to have it ripped to pieces and him people cast out as punishment, especially since he knew it was going to happen, being omniscient. The answer is simple, to learn, to grow, to give an existence a chance to do as he does, in the image of himself, as clearly stated. This doesn't mean we look like him, it means we are him, make choices like him, have the chance to chart out our lives.
>>25726754
Fair!
>>25726791
>whether you call that thing god or not, who cares.
I agree.
>also the bible on the first page says that the earth was created before the stars existed
Not quite but that's an interesting outlook, there are infinite interpretations based on planes of existence at this point. If stars didn't exist how did God think of them? The concepts were made, the planes of reality were not. Heaven was already.
>christfags and retardation (or maybe just plain ignorance) go hand in hand
That's your opinion and you are very welcome to it.
>i suppose you both respect schizophrenics in the same way you respect religions?
I don't know enough about schizophrenia to make a judgement, I can see what you're getting at though, alternate realities in the mind. The difference is people who have no mental conditions still believe in different forms of beliefs.
>all creatures equal and forever or something like that
No?
>most scientists are agnostic for obvious reasons.
Citation needed.
>>25726236
>A sentient being would have made the universe a lot more interesting if it had created us
Anon, you can't tend that position what so ever, stop trying to pretend you can reason with a being on a literal different plane of existence. There are plenty of other more logical objections than "god would have done different."
>>25726791
>the bible on the first page says that the earth was created before the stars existed
>literal interpretation of the bible
>>25726752
What does "after their kind" mean?
You say bears are bears, but Ursavis, one of the earliest known bear families, had members the size of cats. How un-bear-like can a bear be and still be a bear?
And general can a kind be? Are all carnivores the same kind? Can we say that cats and dogs are the same kind?
As for the matter of creation, many faiths have the demiurge as distinct from the One. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses, a non-trinitarian Christian sect, believes that Jesus was the only direct creation of God, and that Jesus created all other things on God's behalf. (Despite this, they also view Jesus as merely an intercessor, and direct all worship to the singular God).
One can think of evolution similarly. God creates the laws by which the universe develops. The universe develops onwards, without needing God's direct intervention.
Also, feathered dinos were known before Jurassic Park. The creations in that movie/book were designed to match the pop-cultural expectations. The masses didn't care what science said, they wanted scaly raptors. So science provided their abominations.
continueing to rant because the char limit is stupidly low
>>25726480
>God did this, God did that, but really God laid the groundwork and then people did everything.
that implies you believe that god exists without doubt, (the christian one, based on your other posts)
which pretty much invalidates everything you've said so far. besides that, god constantly interacts with humans in the bible.
regardless, a creator having created us, then left us to our own devices is the most likely hypothesis and arguably the only one for any sort of intelligent creator.
whether it cares what we in particular do is completely inarguable and unknowable as of now.
>Genesis states very quickly that the animals were created and finished including all after their kind, which means the basis of adaptation is guaranteed.
excuse me? can you please point me to the verse where the bible explicitly describes evolution?
>we can argue Neanderthals, we can argue mishapen humans based on mishapen humans we see today.
first, nice grammar
second, in what quantity do you see misshapen humans?
third, do you live in chernobyl?that last question was a joke, just in case you were about to point out that nobody lives in chernobyl anymore
>Why not? From my beliefs, this is education, things need to change, concepts need to be put forth, people need to learn, both physically and mentally. From your point of view, you may see it an inefficient, just jamming knowledge into people's brains, from another point of view it's one of the best ways to learn, as we only learn when there are clear unknowns.
that has absolutely no relevance to the thing you quoted
>>25726752
>After their kind. I know it seems like a copout, but it's right in Genesis, right at the start, bears are bears, they can interbreed and adapt just like anything else. We even see polar bear / brown bear hybrids.
>excuse me? can you please point me to the verse where the bible explicitly describes evolution?
>>25725793
He mis read believe as beliber, as in a fan of Justin beiber
>>25726907
Oh, alright.
>What does "after their kind" mean?
I don't study specific species, that's up to science to discover, same with carnivores. We see that brown bears and polar bears can make and create offspring, we also see that polar bears are likely an offshoot of brown bears. Things do add up.
I can't speak for other faiths, but if it coincides with how things change and evolve, who am I to say otherwise for now. I'm mostly basing it off the many interpretations of the bible, my understand as a Christian, and the fact that neither side can stand up and say "I have seen the light and know this to be true 100%"
That's why it's faith. Also, yes, the universe does develop onward without the needed intervention. That's why we aren't seeing intervention since the old testament days. That's really what I was getting at, God set up the play, we're all acting it out.
Cool that they knew about feathered dinos though beforehand, it's unfortunate that the public expectation overruled observed theories and possibly facts but, that's Hollywood I spose.
>>25726905
>that implies you believe that god exists without doubt, (the christian one, based on your other posts)
which pretty much invalidates everything you've said so far.
I'm not sure how, I'm saying everything based on my beliefs. I was making a pairing between the idea of adaptation, if you read the previous post I was stating God wasn't intervening or making new changes to the world as it went on as it was made to change from the getgo. I mean if you look at the universe, everything is changing, constantly, through growing, leading, adapting, eroding. Dust we come dust we go.
>excuse me? can you please point me to the verse where the bible explicitly describes evolution?
Well, Genesis. It would be a disservice to just cite you the specific lines out of context, but again, it says according to their kind / after their kind, same meaning depends which bible version you're reading.
More to follow.
>>25726752
>I agree too, we can't hope to understand every facet.
you almost said something slightly intelligent, but then you implied god's existience.
and again, i'm not saying that god can't exist, but i am saying that you're stupid.
>I don't understand, are you saying a system that could create the ability to create other things? We already have it.
actually we have a system that uses existing matter to form things we concieve as objects, but I guess that's close enough.
bravo on not sounding completely retarded for a moment.
>That's really one of those things that's makes me say, it doesn't make sense to take offense or look down on people for their beliefs. God has always been. From an atheist outlook, the existence has always been, at least from what they can tell, something obviously created something that made something, whether random or not, no matter how far you go back, something had to be to give existence to what we hold now.
you've heard this before, but why can't the universe have existed forever instead? not that i'm saying that's the only possibility, of course.
>Why make a child when you know it will cause you suffering in some form, and you know you introduce them to world where they can potentially suffer? Oddly, we have the ability to do what God does, create life. And take life for that matter. This is a lesson that ties into.
actually, some people believe that creating children is morally worse than torturing someone to death.
no relevance to the current argument. just thought that was interesting.
jeez, the character limit seems shorter every time.
>>25726905
And the rest. By the way the large top chunk of >>25726975 was meant for >>25726883
>first, nice grammar
Thank you, it has nothing to do with the discussion but I will attempt to write better.
>second, in what quantity do you see misshapen humans?
I'm unsure, birth defects? More than I'd like to see.
>third, do you live in chernobyl?
No, but the joke was noted.
>that has absolutely no relevance to the thing you quoted
Elaborate how, I think it fit fine.
>>25726982
>i'm not saying that god can't exist, but i am saying that you're stupid
You're welcome to your opinion.
>bravo on not sounding completely retarded for a moment.
Thank you, I know you believe that the antagonistic approach is helping your argument but it's not, both these attacks have nothing to bring against my observations.
>you've heard this before, but why can't the universe have existed forever instead? not that i'm saying that's the only possibility, of course.
It's possible, but why? Randomly? It honestly makes more sense to me that an intelligent creator existed, but I concede that's based on my own outlook.
>actually, some people believe that creating children is morally worse than torturing someone to death.
Of course, not all though.
>no relevance to the current argument. just thought that was interesting.
It was.
>jeez, the character limit seems shorter every time.
Yes, I'm regularly having to break up my posts into multiple parts.
>>25726794
>why fool around when he could have easily made everything perfect from the start?
see, this is an argument worth arguing against, but not the way you did it.
>blah blah biblical stuff
no relevance whatsoever.
the real way to do it is 'time is a dimension, so from god's perspective, it could already be'
>>25726836
>Not quite but that's an interesting outlook, there are infinite interpretations based on planes of existence at this point. If stars didn't exist how did God think of them? The concepts were made, the planes of reality were not. Heaven was already.
i think i get it now. you studied the bible for years, so you assume everyone will know what the heck you're talking about.
i read the first few pages and quit after twenty or so contradictions with reality. now, a lot of christians say the old testament is stupid.
fair enough, but why would you trust the second part of the book if you don't trust the one written first?
>I don't know enough about schizophrenia to make a judgement, I can see what you're getting at though, alternate realities in the mind. The difference is people who have no mental conditions still believe in different forms of beliefs.
i was using schizophrenia as an example, i barely know shit about it.
maybe it would be better to say 'there's some weird guy dancing in a pink jumpsuit in that locked house'
you hear some weird noises, so maybe that's it. maybe it's not. who the hell knows. why would he have a pink jumpsuit?
if somebody believed the thing making the noises was wearing a tie, would that affect his choices?
>all creatures equal and forever or something like that
>No?
i'm gonna be honest, i remember something like that, but i looked it up and found nothing, so...
>>most scientists are agnostic for obvious reasons.
>Citation needed.
i suppose i just assumed that if they thought like a scientist, they'd be agnostic. i have no hard data. you win this one.
>>25726975
>I don't study specific species, that's up to science to discover, same with carnivores. We see that brown bears and polar bears can make and create offspring, we also see that polar bears are likely an offshoot of brown bears. Things do add up.
And science says it's possible for a bear to have an offspring who in turn will have an offspring, who begets another offspring, etc. Until the offspring is not comparable to the original bear.
Many of our definitions of animals are imprecise anyway.
For example, salmon and hagfish are both fish. But a salmon is more closely related to camels than they are to hagfish.
From observations in the fossil record, we can record crude-footed fish developing, giving rise to more amphibious beings, who have more descendants, giving rise to the wealth of vertebrate life out there. But a cat is not a fish, even if it's a closer cousin to a salmon than a hagfish. In a real sense, there is no meaning to the term fish.
Birds, for example, are now commonly classified as a kind of dinosaur. Because we see the traits developing within dinosaurs, the feathers, the wings, the muscles, the barbs, all giving rise to a new and distinct form of life.
> Also, yes, the universe does develop onward without the needed intervention. That's why we aren't seeing intervention since the old testament days. That's really what I was getting at, God set up the play, we're all acting it out.
And where does this need for a direct hand end? Could not God, with his omniscience, set in motion everything he needs at the first dawn? Can not evolution be his tool?Also, a semi-humorous piece of trivia. According to the Catholic church, the amount of miracles has increased since 1983. Since that is the year when Pope John Paul II retired the position of the Defender of the Faith (popularly called the Devil's Advocate, which is where we get the term), whose job it was to rationalize miracles during the canonization process)
>>25727084
>the real way to do it is 'time is a dimension, so from god's perspective, it could already be'
It's interesting that you'd argue this way yet insult me for talking about different interpretations based on planes of existence.
Either way, you're becoming horribly antagonistic, so I'll just say you win, I can't convince you of other ways of thinking. I've tried to convey my viewpoint to you, and you just knock it down calling me retarded and stupid, and injecting a "better way" to do things that aren't actually better nor would they present a better response based on the previous questions asked. I feel like you're just attacking me at this point, so, by all means believe what you wish to believe, it's not my intention to slam anyone for what they perceive. If you even admit to quitting reading what I have to say and then respond in a manner that doesn't coincide with the discussion how am I supposed to respond lol?
You found a couple ideas you presented to be possibly incorrect, my one hope is you explore them, not for me, honestly, truthfully, but for you. If you found flaws in your own thinking tackle them, I'll tackle mine too.
>>25727163
>And science says it's possible for a bear to have an offspring who in turn will have an offspring, who begets another offspring, etc. Until the offspring is not comparable to the original bear.
After their kind.
>And where does this need for a direct hand end? Could not God, with his omniscience, set in motion everything he needs at the first dawn? Can not evolution be his tool?
Well of course I suppose it's possible, it's just I see no evidence of it. I know it's going to turn into a slippery slope like "Where does adaptation end and where does evolution begin" but these are terms that are rather loosely thrown around, not necessarily by nature of definition, but by the nature of adaptation.
I can't speak for anything about the Pope or Catholicism, I am not Catholic, nor do I believe, or really have I seen, an increase in "miracles"
To me a miracle is the walls of Jericho falling, or the burning bush. I haven't seen anything like that, mostly men interpreting things.
>>25727213
>After their kind.
The problem here is, where do kinds begin and end? What defines a bear?
The Catholicism story was not important, just something I found interesting. The Pope wished to create more Saints, but didn't want to argue with the canon lawyer about each one. So he got rid of the position.
>>25727280
I don't know though, it just specifies the beasts and birds and plants, fish, etc. These classifications were seemingly human, not to discount God or make it seem like he was just plopping random shit onto the world, nor to discount us and trying to classify these different creatures. The important part is that God specifies that stuff is going to come after, which gives rise to the idea that things are made to change, seeing as they're not whisked into existence at this point.
>>25727016
>>that has absolutely no relevance to the thing you quoted
>Elaborate how, I think it fit fine.
i see it now. i misinterpreted you.
firstly, you're assuming that god exists and cares about humanity.
second, what do you mean by 'just jamming knowledge into people's brains'?
>I know you believe that the antagonistic approach is helping your argument
i'm not trying to improve my argument by being antagonistic, i'm just naturally antagonistic.
actually, now that you point it out, i feel kinda bad about it. sorry
>It's possible, but why? Randomly? It honestly makes more sense to me that an intelligent creator existed, but I concede that's based on my own outlook.
which of course gets us nowhere.
>>25727163
>And where does this need for a direct hand end? Could not God, with his omniscience, set in motion everything he needs at the first dawn? Can not evolution be his tool?
of course.
>>25727165
>It's interesting that you'd argue this way yet insult me for talking about different interpretations based on planes of existence.
i'm not talking about planes of existence, i'm talking about a hypothetical extra dimension, as in x y z t dimensions.
>I've tried to convey my viewpoint to you, and you just knock it down calling me retarded and stupid
first, i've avoided using the word retarded throughout the entire thread. if i did, it was me failing to repress a habit.
second, i make lists like this a lot. i don't talk much so i guess i just sort of noticed that right now.
third, try pretending the bible doesn't exist while arguing for the existence or non-existence of god/gods.
>>25727165
If you found flaws in your own thinking tackle them, I'll tackle mine too.
-Anonymous
Best quote of 2015
>>25727330
>'just jamming knowledge into people's brains'?
That was my fault, I saw that too honestly. I was saying, I know you think it's inefficient, and would be BETTER to just jam that knowledge into people's brains.
>actually, now that you point it out, i feel kinda bad about it. sorry
It's alright, this isn't new, people are defensive of their beliefs and rightly so. I really just want this to be a discussion, not a debate. I'm not trying to ruin anyone's side, I commend them for building a sensible outlook and perspective on existence, even if it differs from mine.
>which of course gets us nowhere.
It's all I can offer in this discussion, besides an understanding of biblical quotes and how they can be applied to reality in this existence.
>first, i've avoided using the word retarded throughout the entire thread. if i did, it was me failing to repress a habit.
It's alright, again, I expect the backlash at this point, it's just difficult to discuss anyone if they're dead set on belittling you to further their opinion.
>try pretending the bible doesn't exist while arguing for the existence or non-existence of god/gods
We seem to notice the universe is expanding uniformly, possibly, likely from a central location, if it happened once it stands to reason it can happen again, and possibly multiple points. Why has it not?
What came before everything? Was it always? Why?
Why are some of the most ancient religions today the big 3 monotheistic ones? We have wild imaginations, why would this one, and multiple outlooks on one primary idea be the big one that stands out?
>>25727355
Maybe your quote is the best for pointing out the importance to challenge yourself and your understanding.
>thread devolves into a shitstorm about creationism and other religious arguments.
"I just don't know what went wrong."
