Evolutionists BTFO 4 YEARS AGO
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/peer-reviewed_s_1067421.html
We have only ever observed micro-evolution.
We can't explain why Chimpanzee's are here.
Evolution requires FAITH.
Why are you still an evolutionist?
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults
Read reason #3
>"evolution is stupid because we still have some missing links and theories"
>"creationism makes more sense guise"
>"god made us out of nothin after he created himself"
>"guise he lives in the clouds and his son was down here once and got dedded by jews"
>"guise it makes sense"
This is the reason America is a third world country. Do you realise how many contradictions and loopholes there are in the Bible?
>>56940933
Get on your knees for your skydaddy murrica
>>56940933
yes yes... and earth is flat right?
>>56940933
Explain this then dumbass
>>56940933
Nobody likes to admit that there should be millions upon millions of remains of all the in-between phases of the evolution of man.
Too bad so many people have been brainwashed by the evolutionary theory when they were in school to look at this simple fact.
Ever heard of MRSA?
>>56941027
>>56941063
>>56941079
>>56941115
Read my second link.
It contains several quotes from many evolutionists, including Darwin himself, Richard Dawkins, Stephan J Gould, and many others.
The one from Richard Dawkins is going to break you down.
Gonna end the thread quick, here.
>Evolution does not wipe out the species it split from necessarily
>Evolutionary trees split several times, with some branches dying off, and some splitting even more
>Dogs and cats are heavily related
>Humans and pigs are heavily related
>We have more in common, genetically, with pigs than with do with chimps, which is why pig body parts can be transplanted into humans, like the heart, intestines, and stomach.
>>56941063
God doesn't disprove evolution in any way whatsoever. Quit projecting.
If anything, it further reinforces the belief that a deity or something along those line started life as the origin of life is both entropically and enthalpically unfavourable.
>>56941158
In my second link many evolutionists, openly state this.
There is an interesting quote from Richard Dawkins in it as well.
The Atheist kiddies sure will love it.
>>56940933
God I hope someone nukes America soon
>>56941204
Read my second link.
Has quotes from Darwin himself, Richard Dawkins, Stephan J Gould, and many others.
All evolutionists that would have laughed at you for saying that, as if you thought it proved anything.
>>56941158
>Nobody likes to admit that there should be millions upon millions of remains of all the in-between phases of the evolution of man.
Fossilization requires a very specific and rare set of circumstances, ya fuckin' dingus.
i started to type out an explanation
but nevermind
you're a fucking idiot
read a book you dumb nigger
>>56941273
pls
>>56941273
Shit nigga, most of the retarded fundies I've seen come from the UK. Anglicans are the most retarded of the Christians. Well, maybe it's the Scotts or the Welsh. Probably those tards.
>>56941333
Guess what, anon's words are almost an exact quote of Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, he once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
Also
Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…
“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”
You just proved what anon said is absolutely true.
YOU ARE BRAIN WASHED
>>56941367
Explain what your evolutionist buddies admitted.
Especially when they teach at Harvard and John Hopkins. Yet you think you know anything about what evolution actually states.
If all else fails, see this post.
>>56941396
>>56941396
>YOU ARE BRAIN WASHED
And what's your alternative to evolution, my friend?
>>56940933
>We have only ever observed micro-evolution.
Small mutations in each generation over a million years will inevitably lead to larger mutations. You'd have to be legitimately disabled to somehow miss this fact.
Wow species that existed millions of years ago are extinct who would have thought
>>56941396
>>56941292
>>56941237
>>56941197
look up what punctual equilibrium is, retard.
denying evolution is basically denying physics
>>56941204
Is human bacon any good?
>>56941424
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html
>Gould closed his article with:
>Evolution is a theory of organic change, but it does not imply, as many people assume, that ceaseless flux is the irreducible state of nature and that structure is but a temporary incarnation of the moment. Change is more often a rapid transition between stable states than a continuous transformation at slow and steady rates. We live in a world of structure and legitimate distinction. Species are the units of nature's morphology.
>they haven't found the missing link!
>find missing link
>they haven't found the missing link between the last link and now!
I hope you all understand how much bait this thread is lacedwith
>>56941498
I dunno, can't say I've ever thought about cannibalism. I may be an atheist, but I'm not without morals.
Purportedly, though, human meat tastes remarkably like pork, with a little hint of [spoiler][spoiler][spoiler][spoiler]chicken[/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler][/spoiler]
>>56941443
God.
>>56941495
Tell that to Richard Dawkins. And the professors at Harvard and John Hopkins.
>>56941573
No bait.
Read the article.
>>56941532
Read the articles, if you have enough brain capacity to understand what the first one says.
>>56941588
It was more of a joke response, especially since I already knew the answer, but the pig-transplanting compatibility is new to me.
Thanks, breh
>>56941515
But you're the creationist. Why would you cite an evolutionist website in disfavor of your own stance?
It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative. (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, [New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996], 229-230)
>>56941737
>God.
Oh, so you're one of those idiots who thinks that God and evolution have to be mutually exclusive. Even the Catholic church agrees that evolution happened and was, in their opinion, the mechanism used to create us.
I get the feeling that if you posted this on /sci/ or /an/ you'd be laughed at or ignored.
>>56941771
Because people seem to believe evolution is a fact.
Especially on /b/, /pol/ is slightly more knowledgeable.
Also, many of the quotes in the second article I posted are from Evolutionists that teach at Harvard and John Hopkins, as well as Richard Dawkins.
Who says this in his book,
It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative. (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, [New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996], 229-230)
Dawkins openly admits that the only explanation for the gaps in the fossil record is divine creation. But that he rejects the idea.
>>56941832
It wasn't, and the Catholic Church didn't, the scum ridden pope appointed by Satan himself said it.
No creationist agrees with what the pope said.
>>56941737
>Tell that to Richard Dawkins. And the professors at Harvard and John Hopkins.
given the quotes you've linked to me, they would agree with me
kill yourself sub-115 IQ scum
>>56941890
posted on sci
>>56941902
>Because people seem to believe evolution is a fact.
It is a fact. Evolution means change over time, things do change over time.
>Dawkins openly admits that the only explanation for the gaps in the fossil record is divine creation. But that he rejects the idea.
hehe, no he doesn't. You cite the sources as if nobody would look. Either you don't read the full source or you're a bad troll.
"While it can be gleaned from this quote, it needs to be pointed out specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record.
The part in the ellipsis is an explanation for this, as follows:
"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html
>>56941973
Yet they have nothing to base their beliefs on.
Try 154.
It's okay that you are mad you have nothing to base your beliefs on. That's fine. You don't need to get upset about it though.
>>56942063
No it doesn't.
That is not what it means.
Must be an invisible man in the sky who created billions of other planets and watches us masturbate, right?
>>56942105
Please stop.
>>56942140
An Almighty God who sees everything.
>>56942140
Of course, this book says so, you must always believe books they can never lie. Except those OTHER books, they're all lies and the people who believe in them are stupid.
>>56942080
>154
kek'd
>>56942063
>>56942155
>>56942216
>It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative. (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, [New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996], 229-230)
>The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative.
>>56942105
Found a picture of you.
>>56941890
Just wanted to let you and everyone else here know that I posted this on /sci/
The second response was that everyone knows evolution is bullshit and to stop posting threads
>>56942273
>the only alternative
What is the explanation that was an alternative from christfag?
Quotemining is easy. Actually reading the entirety take courage from someone as closeminded as you.
>>56942418
>/sci/
>evolution is bullshit
cool story
>>56942334
Not sure if this will work.
>>>7686079
>>56942418
LOL, you are quite dense
>>56942454
>>56942334
>>>/sci/7686071
>>56942418
I really can't tell if you're trolling or not, but /sci/ is always baiting biology majors. Stop either way.
>>56942464
>>>/sci/7686071
>>56942418
>that everyone knows evolution is bullshit
.... and biology is a pseudoscience, he was having a go at you for not talking about a harder science.
>>56941737
>Tell that to Richard Dawkins
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/dawkins-why-int.html
he says you've quoted him out of context. i think that's a big part of the problem.
it's like if i were to say:
"from the viewpoint of any human being with working eyes, the earth is flat and always has been."
but you cut off my quote there without my concluding sentence:
"however, anyone with a brain will tell you that looks can be deceiving and science has definitively proven that the earth is spherical."
>very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago
>what is plate tectonics
/thread
>>56942579
doesnt mean shit
the continents float; they never subduct, meaning they never sink back down.
>>56940933
>No evidence of Neanderthals or Homo Erectus
>Thinks Homo Sapians are descendants of Neanderthals
Loving the pic OP.
>>56942559
He should have at a go at me for being a creationist if anything.
So piss off
>mfw I'm actually finally getting real responses for one
Evolution is a fucking pseudoscientific lie.
Evolutionists claim that 'evolving' happens everyday and throughout several thousands/millions of years and yet, last I checked, there's still monkeys.
Oh I'm sorry, didn't we evolve from them? Surely they wouldn't still be here would they?
>muh common ancestor
Baseless rhetoric. Christ will save you from this fedora-tier bullshit.
sad that some posters on /pol/ feel the need to believe in creationism just because its conservative
>>56942880
>didn't we evolve from them
>surely they wouldn't still be here would they?
If you unironically think humans evolved from primates we see today, you are far to uneducated to even pretend to have a discussion on it.
>>56941027
>USA
>third world
Kekerino denmarkistan.
>>56940933
>We can't explain why Chimpanzee's are here.
Multiculturalism
>>56942922
I assure you I'm very educated. Educated enough to think outside of the fucking evolutionist echochamber. You'd learn something if you read a bible, but instead you're here throwing ad hominem insults.
>>56942880
Clearly bait, but since I know there are some people who genuinely believe this: humans didn't evolve from monkeys, they evolved from apes that no longer exist today. They are gone.
>>56942880
Europeans move to America
Europeans still exist
EXPLAIN THAT ATHEISTS!!!!!
>>56942975
I assure you... if you think evolution says humans evolved from primates that currently exist, you are woefully uneducated, at least in biology.
>>56942900
I was convinced they were all trolls, considering this is by far the easiest board to troll
but then I started seeing threads pop up of people actually starting to attend church and being upset they din't talk badmouth niggers and homosexuals. they are as bad as fedora athiests, joining a religion for the sake of image and to feel superior
>>56942880
>Baseless rhetoric.
Are you trolling or just dumb? I'm going with both.
That's one of the parts of evolution that actually does make sense.
>>56940933
Your picture is idiotic because it presents evolution as a linear progression. There were a bunch of hominids that interbred. Do you really think niggers in africa are direct ancestors to white people?
>>56943026
He never said from ones that currently exist.
He just said from primeapes, which is true.
And that they are still here, which is true.
Biggest problem with these threads is that people like OP literally have no idea what evolution is, they don't know anything about genes, phenotypes,phylogenetic shift etc......
The worst type of ignorance is thinking you know something but its actually based on lack of understanding.
>>56940933
>Evolutionists BTFO 4 YEARS AGO
>YAY PFVICORHY!
Since when neandertalis extinct?
Niggers are still there.
Where is your god now?
>>56943158
>he never said from ones that currently exist
If they currently exist, then they are still here, "which is true" according to you. And if we evolved from them, then why are they still here... which is what he said.
And this is not what evolution says at all, which is why he and you are evidently uneducated on this.
>>56943158
>He never said from ones that currently exist.
>He just said . . . that they are still here, which is true
>>56940933
>We have only ever observed micro-evolution.
And the results of macro-evolution, yeah. It happens over millions of years, it's obviously not something you can see happening in front of you. It's like tectonic plates shifting.
>We can't explain why Chimpanzee's are here.
Yeah we can. They evolved along their own branch from the same common ancestor as us.
>Evolution requires FAITH.
Not really, but let's say it's true. Then so would creationism, so where's the problem?
>Why are you still an evolutionist?
Years of tedious study in a field I eventually abandoned out of boredom.
>>56940933
Christians believe in evolution.
Everyone who responded to this fucker is as retarded as he is a troll.
Fucking morons.
I'm really getting sick of your shit, /pol/.
Note that the board is unmoderated today, so post anything you want.
>>56940933
Honorary Australian status achieved. I'll send you your welcome package, mate.
I guarantee Europeans ITT are all thinking "Surely with all we know about genetics and DNA this issue has been put to bed for good".
Well, friends, there's something you've forgotten to factor in, the American education system.
We're pig/ape hybrids.
>>56940933
>We can't explain why Chimpanzee's are here.
the same reason why amphibians are here AND reptiles AND mammals
niches, retard
read more than one buzzfeed article before you go making threads, embarrassing yourself
>>56943339
No they don't.
>>56943382
But I'm serious.
>>56943400
Don't even try, Nigel.
Everyone smarter than you, and it's a lot of people, notice that world educational systems have failed.
Even so, most inventions and innovations are coming from the US, as you well know. So that makes you dumber than average.
>>56943619
>No they don't.
Well, you're a fucking genius, aren't you?
Did mommy help you with that?
Use your words, princess.
>>56943646
>that blue sky
Bullshit. That isn't Britain.
>>56940933
neanderthals didnt evolve into humans, they evolved from the same boogaloo as us then were killed of by us with ranged weapons
This isn't news, evolution had been known to be bullshit for 30 years now. It has no substantial evidence. To bad liberals keep putting the same pictures in the bio books even though all those examples have been proven to be fake.
>>56943619
I use that line a lot too.
>>56943921
Free republic please leave
>>56943646
I don't see how your image is related desu.
In fact while your sentences are almost coherent there doesn't seem to be any real direction in your post or even solid connection from one sentence to the next. It's the ramblings of a hysterical woman so far as i can tell.
>>56943339
yeah because young-earth creationists and evolution deniers are a /pol/ meme and only trolls would say what OP's saying. if you're embarrassed by fellow christians' backward beliefs, complain about it to them.
Wow anon, you're right, this post made me believe in the invisible skyman above who created us in 7 days together with the sun even though days cannot exist without sunsets. I'm glad you made me see the truth.
>>56942819
>plates never subduct
not completely, but they can still fold in on themselves
>>56942559
Sure it is, just like physics and chemistry.
>>56943955
Of the many things wrong with that theory I'll give you one that completely ruins it. Look up irreversible parts. Enjoy your red pill nigger.
>>56940933
ATOMISTS BTFO
>nO ONe has ever seen an atom
>Atoms require FAITH
>If no one can see an atom, how come we can see things?
>Atom means "indivisible" yet christians have managed to split them
>If Atom is the smallest thing in Universe what does it eat?
Jesus 9999: Fedoras 0
>>56944169
What like the eye or something?
"irreversible" my ass... intellectual cop out
>>56944129
right, but he was implying that fossils 600 million years old don't exist because the plates go back into the earth and melt fossils that old.
>>56942418
Yeah and because /sci/ says so it must be true. Implying that /sci/ is not just a bunch of clueless undergrads trying to impress each other instead of actually studying the stuff they talk about.
>>56944053
You know the earth is just 2015 -soon to be 2016- years old right?
>>56940933
USA in a nutshell... thanks for reminding us, why you are the best-country-in-the-world™
>>56944053
>who created us in 7 days together with the sun even though days cannot exist without sunsets
Clever
>>56944242
No one has aevar seen an atom nice meme.
You can get a very good picture of molecules whit hew electron microscopes .And there are some big atoms out you can easily see through indirect means.
>>56944053
Days of a 24 period can happen without a sun.
Time doesn't require a sun to be present.
>>56940933
>American """"education""""
>>56944163
BASED
>>56940933
>american Christians
why are they so fucking stupid?
>>56940933
vhvhvhv
>>56944360
It is not that.
It is, I do know, because God.
>>56940933
>evolution doesn't exist!!!!!
>OK WELL WE'VE ONLY EVER OBSERVED MICRO EVOLUTION
As a Catholic.....these fucking heretic mcdonalds church Christians upset me
>>56940933
It's not about believing in science, we all aren't Richard Dawkins, we just think that religious explanation is much more flawed than evolution. I doubt politicians and people here understand evolution like they should, they learned from television, but it still makes more logical sense than god creating it all on flat earth 6000 years ago.
your pic is full of lies. homo sapien has existed for a couple hundred thousand years not 80k years. about 240k to be exact.
other primate species existed side by side with homo sapien for a time before they were probably wiped out by homo sapien through a number of different possible exchanges. viral contamination through mass migration, interbreeding and war. maybe all of the above
stop trying to make the world more like what muslims want and accept you cant beat the fossil record and carbon dating. your side doesnt even like science so the fight was determined before the first punch was thrown
>>56940933
>there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument
your reason 3 is completely taken out of context, of course no one piece of evidence can make a watertight argument, the collection of evidence does that.
>>56942334
kek'd
>>56942464
newfag detected
>>56944515
mhm... because "god did it, lol" makes much more sense, than actual science... ah you amerifags really should hang your self with these thought prosesses of an ant and make room on earth for the humans who actually think.
you want to be with your god in eternity, why not just kill your self
>>56944163
>>56944478
>taking "re-examining" as anything more than an interesting sunday read with a pathetic reference list that can be disregarded.
>>56944685
Everything created itself is what you believe.
Or, you believe that some big cosmic fart happened and suddenly all matter and energy began to compose and orchestrate galaxies and solar systems which operate under specific laws and that a planet miraculously met all of the very STRICT conditions for carbon based life to develop.
By random chance.
Yeah, that makes a ton of sense, German-bro.
>>56944899
>all matter and energy began
nope, Energy has always existed and will always exist. Educate yourself
>>56944899
>a planet miraculously met all of the very STRICT conditions for carbon based life to develop
There have been a lot of planets over the last ~14 billion years, anon. It's not really a miracle if one happens to meet the conditions and the rest are just rocks.
Religion is a form of control. You must obey these rules and teachings or you go to hell. You must also give your money to the church and tell them all of your secrets... I mean sins.
Evolution is a THEORY to explain how we came to be.
The only reason why people obsess over this shit is because religion is such a powerful tool that those in power don't want to lose control over it. They lose too much by doing so.
If religion was all about peace and loving, and if people were happy with others believing in different deities, and if there weren't any people profiting from it (churches, and other institutions), then there wouldn't be an issue.
You can simply say...
God created the world in such a way that things evolve. I don't see a problem with this. It actually fits with the simulation theory.
tl;dr
With religion you lose unless you're part of the institutions that directly benefit from it.
>>56942943
>We can't explain why Chimpanzee's are here.
>Multiculturalism
LOOOOOOOOL
>>56945019
>all matter and energy began to compose
Read the whole post before you comment.
>>56945051
If we never ever find another one will you change your mind about that?
>>56944899
yea... from this comment, I see that you truely understand what you are talking about... because that is exactly what science tells us, mhm
>>56940933
I'd just like to point out that not even muslims believe in half the crap creationists spew.
>yfw muslims are more scientifically literate than creationist burgers
>>56940933
>We can't explain why Chimpanzee's are here.
>>56945147
Yep, something that clearly required intelligent engineering happened by random chance.
And yet, EVERY SINGLE model of it in the universe, works. Flawlessly.
But it was just luck.
Luck that it continued to happen over and over and over again, and that it has never, ever, failed.
>>56945190
They believe the earth is flat.
Just want to point that out.
>>56945202
And what did they all come from exactly?
You have a root, but it leads to nothing.
>>56945137
So is it really hard to believe, that if energy had already existed, that given enough time, something would cause the state the energy was in to change?
You need a creator for this to happen?
>>56945137
>>56945307
by the way. love how you abandoned the /sci/ thread once you realized the 2nd poster was fucking with you, and you got tossed around intellectually like a little boy in a catholic church.
>>56945288
>but it leads to nothing
go to talkorigins son... do yourself some lurnin eh?
>>56940933
>We can't explain why Chimpanzee's are here.
If Americans came from England, then why is there still an England?
>>56940933
Christian here.
I see that your source is preaching the devil's gospel.
If you don't know what that is you better listen.
Modern eschatology is the devil's gospel. It perpetually teaches that the end times will soon be upon us, and it has been doing this for the past 100 years.
Only in the last century did people start believing that Revelations depicted future events.
When Christ said "it is accomplished" the work was done. He did the work to bring a better life to us all. God already promised not to destroy the world again after the great flood.
So people like you, who support this sort of end times fatalism are actually preaching the devil's gospel.
For only he would be so bold as to claim that the work of Christ on the cross was inadequate. Only he would deceive the world into thinking that God would break his promise and allow the world to be destroyed again.
Also, there is no conflict between God and science. All science, knowledge, art and music is a gift from a loving God who cares about us and wants us to prosper.
>>56945360
I didn't abandon.
I was there for a long time talking to 5 different people until I got banned.
There were over 100 posts.
>>56945307
Yes, because motion doesn't happen without something to cause it to move. That is basic science.
>>56945398
Ah yes, a monkey came from a mouse.
>>56940933
Prove the existence of God. Then evolutionism will not make sense.
>>56945469
>without something to cause it
and for you that has to be a deity? And not a natural scientific process, yes?
>>56944899
have you ever thrown something and had it land somewhere that would have been near-impossible to do on purpose? Where if you tried to do it again, you might try a 1000 times and never do it?
Well, if each of those attempts were a universe, and only one of those universes developed life, would the life in that universe know about the other universes where it wouldn't work out?
Let's say you threw an envelope, and it lands perfectly wedged in the crack of the handle of your refrigerator, and some tiny microbial beings develop on it due to the organic shit occasionally creeping out of your disgusting fridge (which wouldnt happen on the floor or the counter or wherever else), and they become civilized and scientific, and they look at their envelope and wonder at the chances of this ever happening randomly. "What are the odds that our envelope would ever just happen to exist right in this one crack in the side of this entire refrigerator, where the gases of life emit from the white beyond, when in any other spot in the observable kitchenverse, we wouldn't have formed? Of course we were placed here by a divine being!"
Which would technically be true, because you threw the envelope, but what if the envelope fell from a cabinet higher up when your bag of mail came loose and it all fell out? And they can't see the other envelopes because they're too far away or have since been picked up or their telescopes only see out to 3 feet or whatever?
You get what I'm saying?
>>56945469
Also, they probably banned you out of pity.
>>56945241
>And yet, EVERY SINGLE model of it in the universe, works. Flawlessly.
you don't get out much, do you?
diseases, earth quackes, floods, asteroids etc... and in space black holes, exploding supernovae, radiation etc... the universe is a deadly place, son... it was just a lucky coincidence that our solarsystem formed in such a calm part of space, that earth evolved in just the right distance to the sun and that earth became big enough to carry life
"that proves it is designed!" no, it does not! just because the chances of this to happen are low, doesn't mean some godly power made it happen... we are not choosen you fucking idiot
>>56945454
Uhm, which one and where?
>>56945454
and yet he's okay with rape/torture/molestation/starvation/survival of the fittest/etc.
>>56945288
>They believe the earth is flat.
no, they don't, one Saudi cleric claimed the earth is flat once, and he was mocked to all hell.
Also, why would you believe in creationism but not a flat earth? they are both in the bible.
>>56945501
dude, are you actually working out, to be so ignorant and stupid, or does it come by nature in your family?
>>56945531
Okay, if not some sort of grand mover, then what?
If it was a scientific process it had to exist within time and space. So you tell me, what moved the Universe into action?
>>56945544
They banned me for breaking rule 3, everyone was enjoying themselves and not a single foul word was uttered nor insult. That would be a miracle if it were to happen on /b/ or /pol/, yet it happened on /sci/ in an argument about evolution.
>>56945547
Solar system is what I was referring to. And they do work flawlessly.
Gosh, shut up German-bro, all you do is spout insults and claim your opinions are right.
>>56945501
go get some glasses, I hope you don't really see a mouse, but yes, you're absolutely right, phylogenetically we even have a lot in common with mice, thus the extensive animal testing...
>>56945693
No, the Bible strictly indicates a spherical earth.
Even the Hebrew word that was translated meant globe.
Circle is just a 2D representation of a sphere.
The word circle probably didn't even exist until a few hundred years ago.
>>56945703
A monkey came from a mouse.
In fact, according to you, all life came from a primordial soup.
But what do you expect, you have nothing intelligent to say so you resort to insults.
What's it like being 17?
>>56945736
There are several hypotheses as to how the universe expanded from the singularity that it is commonly perceived to have been prior to the big bang. But as for what it was exactly that caused the singularity to expand, we most likely won't ever know. But I know, for a fact, that making up some deity as an answer is a silly primal thing to do.
>>56940933
There's no evidence for a deity nor creationism. Genes muate and nature naturally selects them. Evolution is a force of nature so denying it gets you no where.
>>56945813
I wasn't wrong.
I never said a chimp magically turned into a chimp from a mouse.
And your graph also shows that it all goes back to a mouse.
>>56945687
So much logical fallacy.
Mankind chose autonomy. Life apart from God. That means he cannot live our lives for us and stop us from doing evil. This is the same way your own parents might disapprove of your behavior, and they cannot stop you from acting.
Even a child can understand this simple logic. Do try and keep up.
>>56945556
The ads placed on the right side of the page are all alarmist, doom and gloom, end of the world profiteering and fear mongering.
The people who preach the devil's gospel actually do so without realizing they are helping to manifest and create the very reality that they fear. In this way they are the literal pawns of Satan.
For Christ himself demonstrated the measurable power of faith when he said we would have faith that moves mountains. Well if your faith is corrupted and causes you to believe that the world is going to end horribly for everyone, that's what you will get.
Please reject the devil's gospel in all of it's forms.
Christ died to give us all a better future, a more hopeful tomorrow, a better life for us all.
It is accomplished.
>>56945687
L.E.L.
Creationists should be laughed at and shamed.
I used to be into BTFOing creationists when I was younger and eager to prove my science superstars proud of me, but nowadays I just tell them that its a long-proven fact, that if they stop accepting gravity they will not start flying and that people in the future will look back upon creationists with same smirk and headshake as we look at flat earth believers today.
Do not waste time on arguing with creos.
>>56945849
And what is your theory?
Newton said it best himself, an object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Did the singularity let out a big fat fart and that is what caused it to expand?
Or maybe the singularity had too much for dinner and burst open.
>>56945736
I claim my oppinions are right, because they are...
like all the other's oppinions here that try to squeez a little brain in your thick and ignorant skull, on this thread...
so retarded and/or physically disabled children or even just the concept of "war" that we humans happily do in our free time is what you call "flawlessly"?
well no argument against that then... when your basic thoughts are allready so twisted and wrong we don't even have to start to discuss bigger topics like evolution, in the first place!
>>56945937
Problem of evil is dumb because it ignores the possibility of evil deities. Yahweh for instance should be sent to death row or life without parole.
>>56945959
Evolution is merely the handiwork of our creator. All science is his gift to mankind. People like you work only so that our scientists will be morally bankrupt, and will spend all their time making erection pills for sleazy old men and weapons of mass destruction.
The bible is both literal and figurative. It is both instruction and a school book.
>>56945137
>If we never ever find another one will you change your mind about that?
No, because that means all of humanity is dead. If you could prove that another one can't possibly exist, then I'd change my mind.
>>56945937
What a shit fucking paper LOL. Was that from some 10th grade private christian school philosophy class?
>>56945888
>and nature naturally selects them
>and water waterlly makes water wet
Nature operates on laws.
Nature doesn't just randomly change. The laws of physics don't just randomly change.
They follow a predetermined course of action.
>>56946006
>Yahweh for instance should be sent to death row or life without parole.
Cite examples of why you feel this way.
>>56946006
No, it doesn't ignore the possibility of evil deities. The argument itself is specifically used in regard to theistic claims about omnibenevolence, arguing that it's incompatible with certain states of affairs. Only it's not.
>>56940933
in ur pic it says the missing link is homo habilis...
back when that picture was made we didn't have the evidence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html
>>56945967
Or maybe it had to be three deities that made the Universe. Maybe it's a half dozen but three of them had to die to make a universe. Good think the evidence for any deities is zero.
>>56945967
>The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase.
>>56946039
What's shit about it? Or is it just shitty because you're a butthurt faggot? I'm betting on that latter question being in the affirmative.
>>56946024
You are both a faggot and a retard.
>>56945959
It will be the other way around.
Creationists are the ones who will be laughing.
>>56943146
>mfw I took this picture at my local Asda and it gets reposted every now and again
>>56945827
and a baby in the womb of a pregnant women comes from two little tiny pieces uf cum and a female egg... that is just as ridiculous, right? as if a fetus actually just came from cum and a dot! No, they just POP* and there you have a fresh new baby~
>>56946106
>You are both a faggot and a retard.
This is not an adequate response. It only reveals your own lack of intelligence. If you have a decent, fact based counter argument to my statements I would love to hear it.
Otherwise your statement speaks volumes about the failure of your intellect.
>>56946096
What's shit about it? The fact that he said, because we equate suffering to evil, terrible shit that happens to us that causes suffering is therefore not evil, so an all loving god can still let us suffer, and it wouldn't be evil. It's pants on head retarded, and you should feel bad for posting it unironically.
>>56945894
graph shows: phylogenetically mice are every relevant...graph doesn't show: "it all goes back to" monads.
There will always be a "missing link" unless we find every single person who ever lived.
>>56946032
This whole prove it doesn't exist fallacy.
How do you prove the non existence of something?
Did you know all watermelons are blue until you cut them open? Prove me wrong.
>>56946085
In your own words, please.
Not some copy pasted excerpt from a paper.
Also, that doesn't explain what caused it to expand.
>>56945827
>No, the Bible strictly indicates a spherical earth.
"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." Revalations 7:1
"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time." Luke 4:5
>>56940933
Well, Americans are fucking retarded
Enjoy your Congo-tier healthcare, fucking third world country
>>56940933
>Evolution requires FAITH.
It absoluterly does there is no question here. But science requires "faith" itself, without theory we could not have invented anything.
What are you OP, a 5th grader?
>>56946189
>There will always be a "missing link" unless we find every single person who ever lived.
Invalid.
There wouldn't be a single person who was a missing link, or even a small group. There will be literally thousands of beings in this missing link group.
>>56946131
What is this even in reference to?
I never said the monkey just popped out of a mouse.
Come on german-bro.
>>56946179
There's nothing evil about suffering *at all*. There's evil in people *CAUSING* suffering amongst eachother, because that's sinful. But evil is sin and nothing else. It's only retard secularists who try to conflate terms in a completely failed attempt at posturing, since the argument *does not* refute the theistic position on its own grounds, but only on the grounds of people who already aren't on board with the position. Which is what we call in philosophy a useless argument.
ALLAHU AKBAR
ALLAHU AKBAR
>>56946187
It does though.
Holy shit.
>>56946042
He is basically "Yahweh : That which aborts"
Adam and Eve - Doesn't know how to parent.
Moses - I'm a jealous asshole who kills first borns.
Noah - Yeah..how about mass genocide.
Tower of Babel - Humans working together? Fuck that.
Ritual Sacrifice - Hello torture porn!
>>56946053
Good thing omnibenevolence is a concept and not something that seems to exist.
>>56946041
>>56946041
Natural selection and in turn evolution are laws of nature.
>>56946219
Professor Hawking said it better than I can.
We don't know how it happened, but at some point the laws holding the singularity together, most likely gravity, broke down, and caused the violent expansion of energy.
But that's the great thing about science, we don't pretend to know the answers to questions that are unknowable, or the questions we don't have enough evidence for yet.
It beats the shit out of reading one scientifically flawed text from thousands of years ago and doing out best to avoid questioning it.
>>56946253
Every organism is a transitional form. You just don't understand how evolution works.
>>56946273
if you don't understand even that little... just hang your self and get to your god in haven, peace
>>56946024
>People like you work only so...
Well that's all right because that's what God predestined.
>>56946313
>Good thing omnibenevolence is a concept and not something that seems to exist
I think it obviously does exist, else we wouldn't be alive and thinking at all.
>>56946296
>mfw the british guy is saying "ALLAHU AKBAR"
>>56940933
I thought Pol couldnt sink any lower.
This is either the pinnacle of stupidity, or the pinnacle of baiting.
>>56945937
The problem with this defense is the assumption that evil can't be avoided without imposing on someone's free will. If I make a pot out of clay and you throw it at a wall and it breaks, my free will wasn't affected in any way but my efforts were stymied and I haven't reached my intended result.
>>56946219
It's not a fallacy. Proving that something cannot exist is entirely possible and a large part of the basis of mathematics. Read Euclid if you want some easily understood examples of this.
>>56945937
You acknowledge that this god creates suffering, but he's not malevolent because you don't call it evil? This is a weak argument, pure semantics.
>>56946223
The Bible indicates that the earth is round. Consider Isaiah 40:22 which mentions the “circle of the earth.” This description is certainly fitting—particularly when the earth is viewed from space; the earth always appears as a circle since it is round.
Another verse that indicates the spherical nature of our planet is Job 26:10. This verse teaches that God has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters at the boundary of light and darkness. This boundary between light and darkness (day and night) is called the “terminator” since the light stops or “terminates” there. Someone standing on the terminator would be experiencing either a sunrise or a sunset; they are going from day to night or from night to day. The terminator is always a circle, because the earth is round.
>>56946390
We exist because carbons a hell of a drug. You're alive because your parents bumped uglies. No concept of omnibenevolence needed.
>>56946282
"evil is sin, only people can sin, therefore only people can be evil"
Exquisite way to deflect any questions on god being evil...
But an absolute fail in a philosophical question. By letting natural disasters happen, or even causing them in many instances in the bible. God is inflicting suffering amongst his own creations. And is therefore evil.
If god is the creator of all, and knows all. There is no free will. And god created murderers knowing they'd murder, and rapists knowing they'd rape.
>>56946466
>We exist because carbons a hell of a drug
You can assert that, but it's only an assertion.
>>56946426
it's the nadir of baiting.
>>56940933
>I don't understand how or why fossilization happens: The post
>>56946465
>The Bible indicates that the earth is round.
Shame it didn't indicate that there are trillions of celestial bodies in the sky, all clustered around extremely dense unimaginable voids.
>>56946426
Christfags believe it is ok to lie as long as you're doing it for the glorification of the Lord.
>>56946353
How exactly do laws break down?
>>56946440
In mathematics.
Prove to me God doesn't exist then.
It's so easy as you say. Why haven't you guys succeeded in proving that God doesn't exist?
>>56946479
There's nothing "failing" about that argument in philosophy. Just because you don't like that the terms exclude you from coming to the conclusion you want doesn't make the terms faulty, disingenuous, or even at all any less meritorious.
>>56946282
Well, if you see a baby on the street about to get run over, and you don't save it, is that any different from causing it's death yourself? Because that's basically what god is doing.
>>56946521
I'm glad you asked, it actually does.
The Bible often uses the “stars of heaven” to represent an extremely large quantity. Genesis 22:17 teaches that God would multiply Abraham’s descendants “"as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is on the sea shore."” Genesis 32:12 makes it clear that this represents a number which is uncountable by humans: “"the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude."”2 These are excellent analogies. Clearly the sand of the sea and the stars in the universe cannot be counted exactly by humans, though of course, they can be roughly estimated. Interestingly, the two quantities come out to about the same order of magnitude: 1022, or ten billion trillion, give or take a factor of ten or so.3 (For other verses using stars as an illustration of large numbers, see Deuteronomy 1:10 and 10:22.)
It was not always believed that the stars were so numerous. The astronomer Claudius Ptolemy (A.D. 150) cataloged 1,022 stars in his work The Almagest.4 Many astronomers believed that these were the only stars that existed, even though Ptolemy never claimed that his catalogue was exhaustive.5 Of course, there are many more stars than this number. The total number of stars that can be distinctly seen (from both hemispheres under ideal, dark sky conditions) with the unaided eye is around 10,000. The precise number depends on how good one’s vision is.
>>56946313
So much inaccuracy in this post it's not even worth correcting. It even borders on lunacy.
I'll throw you one bone. You do realize that the Adam and Eve story is a parable, and is not literal, right?
You do realize that the Jews wrote stories in ways that you might find similar to a modern play. They're morality plays created for the purpose of discussion and discovery, and not all are literal accounts of historical events.
You get that, right?
>>56940933
>We have only ever observed micro-evolution.
There's no such thing as micro-evolution, its all the same.
The only difference is time.
>We can't explain why Chimpanzee's are here.
First of all, we share a common ancestor, we're not decended from Chimapnzees.
Second, How can there still be British people if there are colonists in America?
>>56946557
>just because you don't like that the terms exclude you from
The terms YOU decided to define through that shit paper force a conclusion that meets your a priori. And spits in the face of philosophy.
Also, way to avoid any of the other points in my post.
>>56946580
>Well, if you see a baby on the street about to get run over, and you don't save it, is that any different from causing it's death yourself?
Yes it is. You may have an obligation to try and save it given to you by God, but you did not *cause* the baby's death.
>oh look, a thread about evolution. I wonder who made it this time?
Only possible in the US and sandniggerland.
>>56946496
You're here to debate we're not made of carbon? If you understood why liquid water is so weird and why carbon is the slut of the periodic table (bonding with more elements than all others combined) you'd start to build a picture of why life formed from such chemicals.
> P.S. Explain in detail how your deity creates life. Step by step please and take your time.
>>56946479
Just because God knows all doesn't mean free will doesn't exist.
How did you arrive at that flawed conclusion?
I know my friend is going to drink a fifth tomorrow like every night. Does that mean my friend has no choice? And they they couldn't chose to not drink it at any point?
No, it doesn't.
>>56946667
/thread
>>56940933
The universe can come from nothing apparently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs
>>56946465
I just want to know how someone could see "all the kingdoms of the world" from a high mountain, on a non-flat earth.
>>56946601
Yes, stars, which can be seen with the naked eye. One would have to be complete nob not to acknowledge them.
God never made clear to the religious that we're on one planet among trillions of others, though.
I've got some bad news for you Atheists.
The process of reaching God is one of learning, discussion, argument and discovery. This is called the process.
Whenever you discuss God or religion, no matter how much you are against the subject, you are considering holy matters and bringing yourself close to God.
Eventually you will believe. Most people do, even if they have to make a death bed conversion.
So jokes on you. You're doing the process right now.
>>56946549
>Prove to me God doesn't exist then.
Don't be obtuse, the fact that it hasn't been proven doesn't mean that it can't be proven.
>It's so easy as you say.
I didn't say it was easy. I specifically said that Euclid's proofs are easy to understand because other proofs can be very difficult and modern mathematical proofs take years to develop.
>>56946665
its still evil to not save it
>>56946647
No, the way the argument is rigged by virtue of its definitions *can't* accomplish what it wants *to begin with* - that is, to refute the theistic position on its own grounds - because it refuses to use the theistic concept of evil. The whole argument is worthless *to begin with* because it pulls terms from without when the spirit of the argument is to internally criticize the position.
>>56946549
>how exactly
It would take way to long to get into it. If you are genuinely interested, do some independent research into gravitational singularities, and the effect of general relativity on singularities.
>>56946647
Okay. Explain to >>56946665
and me, how the paper spits in the face of philosophy.
Also, point to which points were not addressed.
>>56946601
I could be an intelligent design writer. all you have to do is make up utter bullshit and then pile bullshit on top of the bullshit until you have a wall of texts. Wall of texts look so official, totally not like the psycho ramblings of an irrelevant douchenozzle
>>56946679
Do you believe that god is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful? Yes or no.
>>56946733
It's people amongst people. Sin. God's not in that equation for a theist.
>>56946637
> So much inaccuracy in this post it's not even worth correcting. It even borders on lunacy.
You say this and concede half my argument in one full swoop.
> I'll throw you one bone. You do realize that the Adam and Eve story is a parable, and is not literal, right?
Right off the bat you throw away original sin. Which means no "reason" (I use the term lightly) for Jesus to die. Which means Christianity is a 'metaphor.' Nice doing business with you.
> You do realize that the Jews wrote stories in ways that you might find similar to a modern play. They're morality plays created for the purpose of discussion and discovery, and not all are literal accounts of historical events.
I have Jewish parents and was raised in this bullshit. I'm very clear on why Yahweh is full of nonsense.
>>56946679
Abrahamic religions have this pernicious concept of predestiny, where sinners and nonbelievers CHOOSE, but the faithful are guided and predestined.
>>56946679
If you created that person, knowing they'd drink their life away, are you evil for creating them. Also, you created your friend knowing they'd drink every night. If they decide on day, damn I'm gonna stop drinking, you already knew what day they were going to stop.
There is no free will with omniscience.
>>56946722
Perhaps he existed in the 4th dimension.
>>56946695
It can't and that guy is absolute trash.
Every debate he is ever in he gets buttblasted.
>>56946775
he created the world knowing damn well what was going to happen, then let it happen, and then claims to be good.
>>56946722
Perhaps because there were only a few kingdoms at the time?
>>56946856
There's nothing un-good about the world itself. There's only un-good about the people within it - but as the paper points out, that un-good in people is *necessary* in order for there to be *meaningful good* in the first place.
>>56946837
I'll take your word for it considering you offered no evidence.
>>56946870
Are you being serious?
>>56941027
The bible is the true and infallible word of the almighty God. Have fun in Hell, you tool of Satan.
>>56946919
Natural disasters are "ungood" about the world itself. Disease is "ungood", which existed before people. Floods, meteors, mass extinctions, ect.
All of this happened, with a god that is apparently omniscient and you still claim is good and not evil.
>>56946919
>There's only un-good about the people within it
What purpose does God have with un-good people? In fact, what purpose does God have with good people?
>>56946919
Let me save you a lot of grief. Sinning is not real nor can you pawn off your bad behavior. If you kick someone in the face; you can't ask for forgiveness to anyone but the person you assaulted.
>>56946999
>Natural disasters are "ungood" about the world itself
No they aren't. You're back to conflating "things you don't like" with evil - just like the paper points out you shouldn't do.
>>56946724
I love how you ask me to show you the Bible talking about starts and then you are like, yeah no big deal, you would have to be a fool not to notice them. Also, the Bible spoke of how many there were, I also showed you how at one point people thought there were only a few thousand stars.
Then why on earth did you ask that question?
>>56947011
>Sinning is not real
You asserting that doesn't make it true even in the slightest.
>>56946998
Grow up; there is no such thing as being infallible.
>>56946981
What is the "theistic" concept of evil? Suffering caused by a person on another person?
Yes, if you make it so god simply cannot do anything evil, no matter how evil it'd be if a person did it to another person, then god can't do anything evil.
And you wanted to know how that's spitting in the face of philosophy?
>>56946731
Okay, tell me then, how does one go about proving the non-existence of something.
I'll be waiting.
>>56947039
We're back to the allahu akbarian view of everything being a gift from god.
>I got hit with shrapnel and lost all sensation in my face, thank God
>>56947001
>What purpose does God have with un-good people
The un-good is necessary for good. You can't have meaningful good without the possibility of evil.
>>56940933
>We can't explain why Chimpanzee's are here.
If Americans came from the England, how can you explain where Australians came from?
That's how retarded you sound.
>>56947039
Do natural disasters cause suffering tripfag?
Did god create the world knowing these natural disasters would happen?
Did god cause suffering through these natural disasters he knew would happen, and thusly created?
Is the only reason that this isn't evil is because "evil is sin, which can only be done by a person"?
>>56947061
Just as the bible asserting that sin is real doesn't make it true even in the slightest.
>>56946999
None of that existed during the time of The Garden of Eden.
>>56947074
You know this is a point made that supports secularists and atheists right?
>>56946796
Definitely not throwing away original sin. Not sure where you got that idea.
Autonomy, divorcing ourselves from the divine, was the original sin. We came from a spiritual world into a physical world, one with harsh rules.
We separated ourselves from God.
Please do try to keep up. I understand your confusion. This is a difficult subject.
>I was raised with Jewish parents.
Then I would expect you to understand more of the subtlety of Jewish teachings, unless your parents were non practicing.
There's a lot of wisdom in Judaism, but don't let the /pol/ocks dissuade you from thinking otherwise.
>>56947069
>And you wanted to know how that's spitting in the face of philosophy?
Seeing as you've provided no reason whatsoever why it's the case that it's *at all* anti-philosophical to use the terms of a position to argue *within* the position, and why it's somehow pro-philosophical to argue against a position using terms *completely* outside the position yet claim you're criticizing the position on its own grounds - yes.
>>56947128
yea yea... But I'm talking about reality here. In the millions and billions before humans existed, there were natural disasters, now answer >>56947118
>>56947086
You're not saying anything substantive at all by that.
>>56947041
I didn't say stars, I said celestial bodies; specifically I had in mind planets because there are so many of them that extraterrestrial life is almost a certainty and probably of relevance to the religious person.
If we're holding the bible as the authoritative almanac of earth, and it supposedly got the shape of the world correct (albeit in the wrong number of dimensions), is there anything there about other planets?
>>56947110
So many assumptions.
I'm not saying we evolved from Chimps, I'm saying according to the fossil record we can't show how chimpanzee's showed up.
>>56947128
Two people is not enough genetic diversity. Th great grandchildren would be sterile and deformed.
>>56943167
why did you post tiny though
>>56947123
It does.
The Bible is the word of God and God is never wrong.
If you are going to argue against it you need to entertain all of the premises.
>>56947074
I told you, read Euclid. The process usually involves assuming that something exists and then showing how either axioms or other proofs (which rely on the same axioms) are broken because of it, showing that it can't exist without adjusting your axioms.
stop being an arrogant ape
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agAiIRkHn2o
The theory is not old enough to study macro evolution idiot.
If micro evolution keeps happening over millions of years, according to you, they would still be the same species?
It's proven that we humans have grown in size over the last millennia. Why is it so hard to imagine we lost fur when climate changed, or began walking straight when we became hunters?
>>56947093
How and why does an all-powerful and ever-present infinite being have any use for concepts like "good"? What use are humans?
>>56941832
why wouldn't he get it done immediately and get it right the first time instead of having the whole thing be born out of a sea of blood, death and destruction?
any god that had to use evolution and big bang to create a world would have to be really incompetent and dumb, not to mention cruel.
i guess that's why satan pushes it so hard. he wants atheists to believe god was so incompetent he'd have to rely on chance because he's not all powerful, so they could easily reject him.
evolutionism is the foundation for luciferianism, aka the evolution of humanity into 'ascended masters', the new age religion that murican-jewish nwo plans to set up as the one world religion, as opposed to arabic nwo who want islam and worldwide sharia law.
>>56947165
What I'm asking is... by your definition... is God causing suffering, knowingly, to his own creations Evil. If not, why?
>>56947118
Yeah, they can.
Yes, He did.
Yes, He did.
Yes. God =/= person. He is *existentially* more important than you or I taken to infinity. All moral terms for a theist are defined in His regard. You can make your pretend arguments, but they're not refuting the theist position *at all*.
>>56941027
Yesterday's religion is today's mythology.
To debate the validity of Christianity ,or any religion for that matter, is to fall into the trap of the circular argument. They simply ignore logic. The old testament (almost in its entirety )was borrowed from Sumer. Of course the stories were modified and character names were changed to better fit the monotheistic narrative.
>>56947123
It does if the Bible was made/commissioned by God/contains the Word of God.
>>56947284
Right. So god simply cannot do anything evil because he is god then? Even though what he did and created would be evil for a person to do or create? Is that your stance?
>>56947295
>The old testament (almost in its entirety )was borrowed from Sumer.
Not even remotely true.
So here we see that it's not only the religious who occasionally ignore logic or facts, but also you.
>>56947265
He desires it. He desires Creations that come to Him willingly that have the capability of not doing so. It's in like manner I posit to how we value pets loving us while we *can't even* say that something without a will, such as a stuffed animal, can love us in the first place.
>>56947154
> Definitely not throwing away original sin. Not sure where you got that idea.
You just said Adam and eve is not to be taken literally. As in it never actually happened. Which is good because it appears there's no 'God' to divorce ourselves from. Speaking of words that have no meaning - spiritual.
So far I'm waiting for you to catch up with your own bullshit.
I understand too much of the subtly of Jewish teachings. My parents are reform Jews and good people. Their holy book is bat-shit insane and Christians if anything just make it worse.
>>56947334
Yes it is. It's the stance of virtually *all* theists.
>>56947177
The Earth has only been around for 6,000 years.
The first natural disaster was the flood.
>>56947197
Genesis 1:1 says God created the "heavens and the earth;" the other planets are included in "the heavens."
Hebrews 1:2 says that God has "spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."
Hebrews 11:3 says "the worlds were framed by the word of God."
Revelation 4:11 says, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
>>56947225
Oddly enough we find that all human life stems back to one woman, even from the evolutionary perspective, ironically enough, they even named her Eve.
Also, Eve a came from Adams rib, they were genetically the same. There are some explanations out there from philosophers and doctors as well as astrophysicists who are creationists.I will try to find one for you.
>>56940933
Evolution is and always has been a theory.
Learn that word, theory.. Say it after me, theory. There, how did it feel? Felt good yeah?
Theories are structured in a way which encourages them to be debunked. Why you ask? Because truth and understanding is more important than saving face.
This is one of the key differences between science and religion.
Science will put its hands up and admit its faults. Religion won't. Religion is literally
>DINDU NUFFINK RONK U BAD BOY WE WUZ GUD BOY
Now kindly remove yourself and any family/distant family you have circulating in the genepool.
Thank you kindly and have a nice die.
One thing I always notice about debates between atheists and religious folks.
The atheists always seem to think that all religious folks are fundamentalists. They either ignore, or more likely, are completely unaware of the diversity of religious beliefs.
Do they even know that there are Christians who believe in evolution? Jews who do not take every word of the Torah as literal fact?
It boggles the mind that they could be so ignorant of the world. I attribute this to their young age and limited life experience.
>>56947361
>He desires it.
What use does an all-powerful infinite being have of such concepts as "desire"? By definition it has nothing to desire.
>>56947233
You have to actually provide evidence for your premise. Like, when I claim Yahweh is an evil overlord I can actually point to the places in his book where he murders innocents in cold blood. He's only 'right' if your argument is might makes right.
>>56947394
Then I think we're done here. There is no logic whatsoever in your stance, and in that paper. Then again, logic has very little place in theism, as you can clearly see now.
>>56947397
>6,000 years old
So you not only hate biology, but all of modern science then?
>>56947248
In your own words, tell me how it would be possible.
>>56947274
Can you please reword the question.
>knowingly to his own creations Evil
What?
>>56947448
>By definition it has nothing to desire
Huh. Where in the world do you get this from? Omnipotence doesn't beget some kind of special mental state of affairs necessarily.
>>56941333
like a worldwide flood, records of which exist in practically every major culture, no matter if it's jews, chinese or indians.
without a huge flood in the past the existing layer of very similar fossils wouldn't exist all over the world.
>>56947305
Luckily, there's no evidence to think there's a deity or a deity that would commission humans to write books.
>>56947369
>As in it never actually happened.
No. That's not what that means at all. Metaphor does not mean a subject should be dismissed entirely.
You're clearly having a hard time with these larger questions.
>My parents were reform Jews
Apparently non practicing as you don't seem to know much about the faith my friend.
>The holy book
There's more than one in Judaism. You would know that if you participated. There's also many types of Judaism. Usually liberal and reform Jews are the most sensible and intelligent, despite their liberal political leanings.
>>56947469
>There is no logic whatsoever in your stance
It is a 100% logically valid argument. You disliking the terms at play =/= the argument is invalid. You're a butthurt whiny secularist who can't stand the idea of something he doesn't like not being subject to definitions that completely don't belong to the position. It's utterly laughable.
>>56947448
>>56947483
It does though.
To be loved willingly.
Without something else to love God out of free will, God can never experience that,
Hope I just blew your mind with that one, I really do.
>>56947481
Is god knowingly causing suffering to his creations. If so, is that evil? If not, why?
>>56947545
Stop anthropomorphising God you shitter. Next you'll be carving idols.
>>56947546
Acts of nature are not punishment from God, but rather consequences of living in the material world which is governed by natural law and physics.
>>56947540
>100% logically valid
"God cannot be evil, because he is god", is the opposite of logical trip fag. And now, I'm done responding to you. This is clearly as far as this conversation goes.
>>56947469
I hate to break it to you, but it is only about 6,000 years old.
>>56946981
If by "Defeating the theistic on it's own grounds" you mean demonstrating internal inconsistency in the theist's position then it's true that you need to argue from their premises and not just some of them. That doesn't mean that those premises must always be taken to be true, only that they're the starting point for the discussion. They're still subject to being taken apart if they're inconsistent with reality.
>>56947528
Evidence =/= truth. We don't have "evidence" of what happened at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean at a certain latitude/longitude in the year 322 BC, but that doesn't mean there's no truth to that question.
>>56947611
So now that we've established you refuse to believe upwards of 85% of modern natural science we can move on.
>>56947481
>In your own words, tell me how it would be possible.
I just did that. Take your axioms, see how it fits in, if it doesn't work out then it's proven wrong. Unless, of course, you can provide another set of axioms in which it works and all previous proofs have analogues that also work or explanations as to why they appeared to work.
>>56940933
I'm agnostic, purely because I don't like the idea of nothingness when I die. But it would make sense for God to create evolution. When you complete a level in a game, you don't wait for the programmer to come in and programme the next level for you. If God has any brains he'd have created evolution so that he doesn't keep having to get involved and can leave the planet to function alone.
>>56947589
That wasn't really a counter argument.
I just showed you God can desire something, you don;t need to be mad about it.
>>56947546
Is God causing it, no. Does that answer your whole question?
>>56947597
The material world is not governed by natural law and physics if God has the power to create miracles via divine intervention.
>>56947611
How did this striking nonlinearity of carbon-14 decay come about?
>>56947597
Not saying it's a punishment
Natural disasters occurred before humans existed. I'm just saying that natural disasters cause suffering, god created the earth knowing natural disasters would happen. Do you not follow?
>>56947657
Science is wrong all of the time.
We are finding C14 in large quantities in things which should have none.
Comets are left over from formations of planets, they only live for about 10,000 years. We still have comets.
If the universe were billions of years old, even hundreds of thousands of years old, we wouldn't have any comets.
>there are no transitional forms
Oh my
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Look at all the lack of those transitional forms.
Oh god there are absolutely none.
>>56947609
"God cannot be evil, because the term evil only applies to human relations, and God is not human."
It's the same fucking thing as "Humans cannot be infected with FIV, because FIV can only affect cats and humans are not cats". It's completely logically valid you fucking faggot.
>>56947678
>is god causing it
So god created the earth, not knowing that natural disasters would happen?
Because if you create a car, knowing that it catches fire after 2,000 miles you may not have taken the gas and lighter to the car yourself, but you certainly are responsible for the fire.
>>56947696
God is separate from his creation. As we are separate from him. This isn't heaven nor paradise, it's the material world.
God's divine intervention is few and far between.
With that said, God is just as willing to use the rod to punish us, as he is willing to use divine mercy to spare us from harm.
King David said fear of God is the cornerstone of faith. I personally agree. God is not a subject to be taken lightly.
>>56947677
Evolution did not happen.
Any Theist that says that is going against God's word in every imaginable way.
>>56947397
> Oddly enough we find that all human life stems back to one woman, even from the evolutionary perspective, ironically enough, they even named her Eve.
You're off here. Humans share a lineage in the women that is called mitochondrial eve....who was not an actual eve. It's the split that happened during our multi-celled organisms. I actually love mitochondrial...because they have an entirely different DNA (IE: Multicelled orgainism are two creatures in one!) Not sure what your cells get out of deities to begin with.
> Also, Eve a came from Adams rib, they were genetically the same
Which never happened if we're keeping track. I also never said they were genetically the same. I said that if you put a brother and a sister equivalent you're going to get generations of inbreds.
> There are some explanations out there from philosophers and doctors as well as astrophysicists who are creationists.I will try to find one for you
No, do you believe adam and eve is literal yes or no? You can't have it both ways and we can't move forward till you actually clear the fog of bull from your brain.
>>56947613
There's no internal inconsistency.
Read image here >>56945937
>>56947678
Why did it create desire?
>>56947747
>comets live for about 10,000 years
you wot
>>56942427
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987113001096
>Ediacaran biota meme
kek
Face it, the Cambrian explosion was a real thing. Evolutionfags on suicide watch.
>>56947233
I have, in my hand, a bit of paper that says you are wrong on this occasion.
It says any addendums I make up are valid.
It says all things on this paper are irrefutable.
Argue against this while entertaining all the premises.
>>56947721
Again, my personal belief is that we came from a perfect place, to an imperfect place. And that our purpose here is to make this place better.
However, going solely by the books, there is the idea that when we fell from grace we entered a corrupted world where, for lack of a better world, shit happens. Bad shit.
>>56947768
Then you definitely didn't need a whole paper to state that rubbish did you?
>>56947791
God knew it.
It happens in nature due to the laws it must obey.
God doesn't stand around and say, hmmmm, yeah, Louisiana, you've been awfully naughty lately, time to punish you.
God doesn't do that.
Fucking reddit-tier thread. Everyone took the obvious bait. Thanks OP for EXPOSING these IDIOTS.
>>56944718
>stop trying to prove we're not nigger descendants! how can i be tolerant and multicultural when it's proven i'm not one!
>>56947768
Come on dude, I know he was being a fool, but don't use bad language.
You only drop to his level.
>>56947860
Are you *that* stupid? You need to both lay out the *OPPONENT'S* position so that you're sure you're not misrepresenting it, and then you need to lay out the critique in clear terms. Holy shit, have you *ever* taken a philosophy course?
>>56947533
> No. That's not what that means at all. Metaphor does not mean a subject should be dismissed entirely.
I like metaphors and they are extremely powerful to humans. That still means adam and eve never actually took place.
> You're clearly having a hard time with these larger questions.
petty insults yatta yatta.
> Apparently non practicing as you don't seem to know much about the faith my friend.
I seem to know it better than you. It's not like Yahweh hides he's a dick. He admits he's jealous in his list of ten suggestions.
Hey Atheists.
I'm just reminding you again that any discussion of this subject brings you closer to God. That this is the process of knowing God and learning his truth.
Even if you disagree, these ideas are viral and will grow withing you as you get closer to God.
This is called the process. Enjoy it. Because you're doing the process every time you engage in this type of discussion.
Peace be with you brothers.
>>56947870
You keep deflecting... is there a reason for that?
>>56945905
How in fuck's name can one be separate from the _omnipresent_ and _all-powerful_ being?
>>56947904
No need to get upset. Your paper was shit, you shouldn't post it in a public place if you're worried about it getting critiqued.
>>56947799
Creationism or more precisely eveoultional denial is only a few hundred years old bucko. They authors of the bible didn't even know germs existed. The bible says nothing on the subject of either.
>>56947906
>having faith literally to spite people
>>56947902
There's nothing wrong with using adversarial bant lingo, except perhaps that people get offended. But if they get offended, then that's a good thing - hopefully it'll make their skin a but less thin to encounter language that makes them uncomfortable or annoyed.
>>56947942
"Critiqued", ha.
>>56947801
It did happen, Eve did come from Adam's rib.
His lower rib to be clear.
Did you know the lower rib is the only thing in the human body that will grow back if it removed?
Yes, I take the Genesis account literally in every sense.
And yes, there are explanations out there. Thanks for letting me know not to waste my time though.
You can look it up in your free time if you wish.
>>56947905
>Metaphors mean something didn't happen.
No. The metaphors simplify a greater idea that did happen.
I'll give you one last example. You can't explain complicated science to a child, so you simplify things in a way they understand.
>I seem to know it better than you
Clearly you don't as you are very ignorant of the practice, traditions and beliefs of your own religion.
Oh, and I wasn't insulting you earlier. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I clearly see that you're having a hard time keeping up.
>>56947870
Is that not exactly what God did in Genesis?
>>56947972
No spite at all my brother. Just pointing out the truth. I actually used to be an atheist. I was very proud of it too. Funny how things work out.
>>56947906
> I'm going to pretend to be humble while asserting that my deity is the truth.
Theists never cease to amaze me.
>>56947815
There theistic idea of evil is inconsistent with the layman's idea of evil. The only way to remain internally consistent is to believe that human suffering isn't worthy of any consideration.
>"#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none."
>What's an appendix?
>What's a tailbone?
Jesus Christ OP, at least look for something that puts a bit effort in this shit. I'm a fucking idiot and even I can tell this is fucking bullshit.
>>56947822
God created everything.
Except for sin and evil.
>>56947824
kek, it's a scientific fact, literally google and it will be the first thing you see.
>>56948054
God doesn't like gloaters and people of a trolling demeanour mate.
>>56948057
Yes it is. But that's what theists are talking about when they talk about evil - they're not talking about the layman. It's not internally inconsistent - it may be *externally* inconsistent, but that's not saying anything important at all - *ANYTHING* can be made externally inconsistent.
>>56948012
>lower rib is the only thing that will grow back
Are you talking about this ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2756968/We-regenerate-Researchers-reveal-ribs-regrow-damaged-say-true-entire-skeleton.html
Because if so, you're wrong.
>>56948056
No assertions here brother. Deity implies a particular chosen faith. I'm just talking about a process. Something you cannot escape. Something you participate in every time you engage in this sort of discussion.
For you must realize that you will never change the minds of the faithful, and that at the end of the day, it's only you that are being changed.
>>56946465
circle != sphere.
look at un logo which depicts a flat earth model. it's a circle. circle of the earth.
>>56948095
While I wouldn't dare to speak for God, I would be willing to chance that he's ok with me explaining the process to people, so they know and understand it.
>If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. - James 1:5
>>56940933
who gives a fuck?
>>56948063
>Except for sin and evil.
If my all-powerful deity had something pop up not of its own design and beyond its own control, I'd take it back to the shop for a refund.
>>56948063
>scientific fact
http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationist_clocks/comets_disintegration.html
>>56947830
You can't.
Glad your plan back fired on you.
>>56947908
Deflecting what? Ask your question very clearly, I will try to answer, I apologize I'm trying to respond to many people. I get lost every now and then.
>>56947961
However the Bible does say that only if you clean yourself in running water will you be clean.
Clean of what?
>>56947978
It's mean and God wouldn't want it.
They say love conquers all, be that love.
>>56948151
If you're arguing the "flat earth" argument you're clearly trolling.
The Torah, in it's original language, frequently refers to the curve of the earth in a way that explicitly states that it is round like a ball.
I'm sorry to break your trolling meme, but I figure you're not familiar with Judaism, and your ignorance is making you look foolish.
>>56948012
> It did happen, Eve did come from Adam's rib.
Okay and how did he do it? What was the process by which Yahweh was able to turn a rib into a woman?
> Did you know the lower rib is the only thing in the human body that will grow back if it removed?
Now all you need to do is figure out how magic happens and creates women.
> Yes, I take the Genesis account literally in every sense.
At least you're open about your cultishness.
> And yes, there are explanations out there. Thanks for letting me know not to waste my time though.
Yes, that these were men who couldn't have possibly know were lighting came from or where the sun went at night. I give them an A for effort but to believe this nonsense as an adult in a modern era is a bit unsettling.
>>56948114
It matters a great deal what the thing is you're being externally inconsistent with. For instance being inconsistent with the idea of flat earth is nothing to be taken seriously, but being when you say something that's inconsistent with basic human values such as the desirability of preventing suffering it will lead people to think you don't care about it which is evil as fuck by any sensible definition.
>>56948239
>Clean of what?
Obviously bacteria and not dirt, grease and odour. Because God told the scribes that, duh.
>>56948239
"So god created the earth, not knowing that natural disasters would happen?
Because if you create a car, knowing that it catches fire after 2,000 miles you may not have taken the gas and lighter to the car yourself, but you certainly are responsible for the fire."
You didn't address the analogy of a car manufacturer refusing to accept guilt for building a car they knew would combust after 2,000 miles. Are you saying the manufacturer isn't to blame? Because every person has the "free will" to not drive the car?
>>56948125
Oh, really?
Please explain how I am wrong.
>>56948151
The hebrew word meant globe.
>>56948239
>It's mean
I don't think so. It's constructive to a person to experience things that bother them, like being verbally berated in conversations over the internet. It forges patience and character, albeit vaster or more slowly depending on the person. I think leaving people in their easily-outraged state without reproach is something God would look down on more than simply letting their temperance spiral into oblivion.
>>56948354
Are you saying God doesn't do predestiny? Are you saying God doesn't know everything that has happened and will happen?
>>56948229
God knew it was going to happen.
>>56943128
This is actually wrong. A phylogenetic tree always splits always into 2 leafs. A polytomy like yours would suggest that there's a missing link somewhere between the organisms and the common ancestor, so there should be another node between them like pic related
>>56948370
You said only the lower rib, when it could be the entire skeleton. Human regenerative properties have nothing to do with adam and eve, and more to do with common ancestors that had the properties millions of years ago.
>>56948409
Are human inventions not God's of creation then?
>>56948408
I don't believe in god. But the judeo-christian god supposedly is omniscient.
I'm arguing that if this is the case, God is evil, and free will doesn't exist... Or god isn't omniscient.
>>56948341
>It matters a great deal what the thing is you're being externally inconsistent with
I don't really think so, but I see your point. That being said, being not in line with the laymen's thoughts is *not* something I think "matters a great deal". I don't respect the laymen's opinions on matters they don't reflect upon *at all* really, and the nature of evil is certainly not something they reflect upon. Like is stated in that paper, "evil" tends to just be a catch-all word for things the laymen "really really doesn't like", which completely degrades the importance and meaning of the term.
>>56948018
>No. The metaphors simplify a greater idea that did happen.
> I'll give you one last example. You can't explain complicated science to a child, so you simplify things in a way they understand.
Alright, so you have no idea what a metaphor is.
> Jon was an ox. He could lift and tumble wood all day long.
Jon was not actually an ox. I used a metaphor to add meat and convey a message that's more powerful than just saying "Jon was strong."
> Clearly you don't as you are very ignorant of the practice, traditions and beliefs of your own religion.
I'm not Jewish as I left the religion. You can keep trying at this game but some of us have actually read the damn book.
> Oh, and I wasn't insulting you earlier. I'm sorry if you took it that way.
> I clearly see that you're having a hard time keeping up.
Lawl, maybe re-read your stuff out loud before you enter it.
What language did Michael and Garbiel speak?
>>56948335
You'll have to ask God that.
God can do anything.
God created the entire Universe. You really think it would be hard?
>>56948348
And where does bacteria generally come from?
>>56948354
God knew it would happen.
God created the laws of nature as well.
God is responsible for the Earth experiencing these. It's not to make people suffer though.
Does that answer your question?
>>56948513
Only if you're using a definition of evil that theists don't use, meaning you're not addressing the theist's position, you're just circle jerking over an argument that accomplishes absolutely nothing.
But that doesn't stop you from using it! You must *really* enjoy those dicks in your ass.
>>56948451
We haven't shown any other parts, I believe in the article they were referring to the lower rib.
But hey, if we can do even more, sounds good.
>>56948474
Can you reword your question.
>>56948513
Explain how God is evil, explain how free will doesn't exist.
>>56948640
>And where does bacteria generally come from?
Other bacteria.
Are you trying to say those early scribes were very sharp men to have recognised that washing with running water means that body odour and muck gets flushed away instead of sticking around?
>>56948640
>it's not to make people suffer
But it does just that. So God created the earth knowing it would cause suffering, by your own admittance. It matters not, the intention of the creation. God knew what he was doing would cause suffering that could not be controlled through decisions of human free will.
How do you figure this is not evil?
>>56948239
> Clean of what?
Good question as holy water is routinely tested to be some of the most highly bacteria filled liquids around.
>>56948725
>explain
read >>56948750
If god created people knowing they'd kill or rape, they didn't have free will to choice otherwise, because god is all knowing.
If god created people with true free will, him not knowing what they'd choose, he is not all knowing.
It's really not a hard concept to grasp
>>56948730
Doctors used to wash their hands in a bowl of still water only 60~ years ago.
They couldn't figure out why their patients kept getting sick and dying from the same thing.
>>56948750
The suffering came of free will actually.
When Eve was deceived in the Garden she ate of the fruit freely.
>>56948526
People tend to spend more energy on avoiding risk than pursuing gain. Because they have such strong desires to avoid the things they really really don't like, even a person who doesn't have a nervous disposition will obsess about those things and it'll create a whole lot of suffering for them. I think you're not giving people enough credit when you say they degrade the importance of the term.
>>56948640
> You'll have to ask God that.
That's not how knowledge works. So you're saying you have no idea or even a method. Then why are you claiming such a thing can be real?
> God can do anything.
Apparently 'he' can't do anything.
> God created the entire Universe. You really think it would be hard?
So you're still avoiding the question. What you're saying is you have no fucking clue how the Universe was made. Well then why didn't you just admit that?
>>56948839
Yes they did, how are you arriving at that distorted conclusion?
Just because God knows it's going to happen doesn't stop the person from making the choice.
>>56948903
It's not a choice if it's already going to happen.
>>56948849
Yes, yes... but again, natural disasters have occurred since earth formation billions of years ago. I know you hate science and what not. But I'm talking in terms of reality.
And even so, Jesus died for the sins of Eve. So why do natural disasters continue to occur? If they are not punishment?
>>56948903
what >>56948947 said
There was no decision to make if god is Omniscient.
You can't argue with religious people, since they argue that God can do anything. And since you can't prove or disprove God, you simply can't debate.
The only thing what we can do is try to understand our world and the more we understand it, the more likely it seems that there is no God.
>>56948901
We don't even know exactly how the Universe was created.
So yes, that is exactly how knowledge works.
There are some things we don't know yet.
How did God do it? Because God can do anything.
That is the simple answer.
God made the Universe, you think turning a rib into a woman is a big deal?
God can do anything.
>How was the Universe made
God created it. That answers your question.
>>56948855
Well they do. There's nothing evil about suffering - trying to claim there is results in a whole bunch of absurdity. Is aids evil? If aids is evil, is the flu evil? What about colds? Is your basement flooding 'evil'? What if it's a particularly virulent flood? It ends up being a completely nonsensical state of affairs.
Only acts of will can be evil in a meaningful sense, and for theists particularly that means only acts of men amongst men.
>>56948849
>They couldn't figure out why their patients kept getting sick and dying from the same thing.
Silly sods should have read the bible, in which the existence of bacteria is implicitly revealed by saying "if you wash with running water, less dirt stays on you".
It's a shame the scribes didn't write "there are many very tiny organisms that like to live on your skin that can cause infectious diseases", but God works in mysterious ways after all.
>>56948947
Yes it is.
>>56948974
Again, yes it is.
>>56948670
I'm not sure how they aren't getting it maybe you can explain it better.
>>56949072
>again, yes it is
Except it isn't. Because if you cannot surprise god with your decision, you do not have free will. If God knows every move you will make, you do not have free will.
If you think otherwise, you need to refresh yourself on the definition of free will.
>>56949072
They don't want to argue using our own terms, because they're not actually concerned with honesty in regard to this argument, they're concerned with sophistry and looking as if they're superior when in fact they're not addressing the position in question *at all*, but pulling terms completely from without and pretending they're "rendering the argument internally inconsistent" when in reality they're circle-jerking.
>>56949054
Saying such a thing would get you killed.
It was in a barbaric time.
They used to believe that disease was the product of demons and Satan, they weren't far off.
>>56949172
Why do you use asterisks and quotation marks for, seemingly, the same purpose, but alternating? Are you autistic by chance?
>>56948060
>appendix
it produces hormones neccesary for health. removing it causes many problems.
>tailbone
is an anchor for muscles. removing it makes it impossible to walk.
it's the same argument as whales supposedly losing their legs, even though the "hip bones" are there for sex and pelvic thrusts, not remains of legs.
you may have some more luck with the snake and its deactivated leg genes, except apparently few thousand year old people already knew the snake's legs were deliberately "shut off" by a higher power. see genesis.
evolutionism wise it makes absolutely no sense for an entire population of animals to suddenly lose something as vital to survival as limbs.
the ones born like that would've died out because of natural selection or be bred out by rest of healthy population.
>>56949157
Yes, you do.
If God made you choose something, you wouldn't have free will.
If God wanted to force us to do things, you would believe in him and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
We have the choice.
It is a very simple thing to grasp.
Being forced=no free will
Having a choice=free will
>>56949178
>you'd get killed for heresy by Christians for stating the word of God
>they had to hide it by saying "wash with running water"
But of course.
>>56949178
>they weren't far off
you know, except for being completely, entirely far off.
Unless organisms that spent billions of years evolving are "demons and satan"
I'm starting to realize just how ignorant you are
>>56949235
I like how you reply to an observation of something completely inane yet have no interest whatsoever in saying anything substantive.
baka desu senpai bbq
>>56949264
Based Poland bro.
On a side note everyone, 401 replies.
You are finally coming around to logic and reason.
>>56949172
But do you at least acknowledge that a god who will not prevent suffering (suffering that isn't a result of evil) is a malevolent god? If not, why not?
>>56949268
>if god made you choose something
Which is precisely what he does, but knowing the choices we make, and being our "creator".
lol this is getting pathetic
>>56949022
God's creation of the universe and humans was a willful act, and he did so with perfect knowledge of nature so he'd have known that humans will suffer from natural causes. Was he being negligent or is it important that humans experience suffering?
>>56949353
Suffering isn't evil. There is nothing evil about suffering *at all*. God could torture me for eternity and he would not be malevolent because there is nothing inherently evil about suffering - only sin is inherently evil.
>>56949280
Whatever makes sense to you.
>>56949303
They weren't. Yes, very ignorant, as we all are.
The only difference between you and I, is that I'm not afraid to admit it. Or when I am wrong.
However, I am starting to realize that seems to be your worst fear.
>>56949013
> We don't even know exactly how the Universe was created.
You don't know that the Universe was created. Just more assertions into the wind. You come with no explanstions for anything.
> So yes, that is exactly how knowledge works.
By definition it's the lack of knowledge.
> There are some things we don't know yet.
And proabbly always will.
> How did God do it? Because God can do anything.
This is the crux of your problem. I ask you 'how' and you tried to respond to why. I don't care that you claim your deity is a super magic man who can do everything. I keep asking you how and you come up with jack shit. You're no different then people claiming Zeus made lighting.
> God made the Universe, you think turning a rib into a woman is a big deal?
I see no connection between universes and making rib women. The only thing that ties them together is you going "Well, I believe one thing based on nonsense...so why not even crazier things?" Uh, because there's no evidence for a god making a universe or rib creation.
> God created it. That answers your question.
It did answer my question...in that you used the word 'God' for verbs, nouns and adjectives I now declare you brain dead.
>>56949317
I've already accepted that talking to someone as deluded and brainwashed as you is a waste of my time. So I've moved on to figuring out how fucked up you are. And you use asterisks and quotations very peculiarly. Thought maybe you were a potato.
>>56949268
god didn't make you to chose something. he made you, then fast forwarded to see which choices you make.
to you, it's free choice. but to god it's as simple as looking at your entire life at once and seeing how it happens.
it's like telling a sports team to play, then recording the match and watching it afterwards, fastforwarding to the end to see the result. you know the result, but the people who were playing didn't.
>>56949373
That's not sinful though. That's what the caveat "men amongst men" was included for in that post. Sin = evil, and sin is about actions and thought in regard to God by men. God *can't* sin (at least under logical conception) in that regard.
>>56949355
Oh really?
But I thought God didn't exist?
So what logic are you basing that on?
No, you are the pathetic one. God doesn't make anyone do anything.
Anymore so than you make me do things.
To deny free will is to deny one of the most basic philosophical principles of life.
>>56949453
Yet, you can't accept or admit that you are wrong at this very moment. Or about the comets, or about the ribs.
Intriguing.
>>56949439
Stop arguing moral and present evidence for a deity.
>>56949532
Can you choose not have free will?
>>56949532
If god is your creator, and god is omniscient. Then god created you, AND all the choices you'd ever make.
So if you are a murderer, god created you AND the choice to stab someone to death.
There is no denying this. It is the crux of omniscience.
But please, do try to find any fault in the logic. It's comical to watch you squirm
>>56949439
But if we say that any will to cause harm is malevolence (which is a common definition), would you agree then that God is malevolent?
>>56949484
Asterisks are for emphasis - think of it as italics - , quotations are simply for deliberate reading of a word as either under question or else directly as a partial or full quotation, usually under scrutiny.
I'm a writer so when I don't have italics I asterisk things, because emphasis on certain words can convey better contexts and tones to what's being said.
>>56949547
Present evidence for not-deity.
>>56949456
Sigh, this post is just sad.
Tell me, why are you asking a stupid person so many questions?
I want you to answer every question you asked me.
I'll be waiting.
>>56949638
Read the second part of the post you replied to - the answer is in it.
>>56949485
Yes, I know that.
>>56949485
>then fast forwarded to find out
So god created you and didn't know what you'd choose at some point? So he isn't omniscient? Good to know Poland.
But just know, that is very uncommon thought for theists.
>>56949524
How could we understand God's nature if we can't picture him as being like a human with human-like decision making processes? Is it wrong to even say "God did X because Y" because the concept of motive doesn't apply to God?
>>56949703
Oh you know that?
So you don't think god is omniscient? He is simply a skilled time traveler?
>>56949689
No, you're still equating malevolence with evildoing and not ill will. I'm asking about a will to cause harm regardless of whether or not you call it evil.
>>56949652
Well, as some constructive criticism... you are a *shit* writer. Use *italics* less.
>>56949544
That is because I'm not.
It will make more sense when we are dead.
Although, you will be in Hell while I am in Heaven.
I will ask God to allow us to visit so we can kiss and make up.
>>56949588
Obviously not, your question is self contradicting.
>>56949637
No. God created me, and gave me free will to come to him if I want to.
I'm not sure you know what omniscience means.
All it means it to know everything.
In no way would anyone infer that it causes someone to do something by force.
You are a sad individual. I'll pray for you.
>>56949735
>How could we understand God's nature
I and most theists do not advocate the anthropomorphizing God. We can't necessarily understand God's nature, but we can take what He tells us of it - and from that we have the normal omni-qualities commonly attributed to God.
>>56949681
Asking questions makes people think. It forces you to actually do research and back your arguments up.
>>56949667
What is a not-deity? I can't disprove a negative. So, you can't disprove it was multiple deities that created us.
Nice trying shrugging off your burden of proof though.
>>56949524
God has desire, want, love, and all these other anthropomorphic traits, but God can't sin. I see.
>>56949485
>>56949703
>to you its free will
So its the illusion of free will... got it
>>56949742
Omniscience means to know all there is to know.
That is all it means.
>>56949712
he knew immediately, but he didn't affect it. he didn't create humans to be clay dolls who act like his puppets. he gives free will to everyone and then sees what they do with it.
those who use that gift for good are rewarded in the end, those who don't are punished.
you think you could chose anything you want, but in reality in 1000 tries you'd likely chose the exact same thing, because you're more predisposed to it, and it's more aligned with your values. maybe due to how you were brought up by parents affected by the same stuff.
only an outside interference could directly change it.
>>56949844
Okay, answer your own questions.
How did God create a woman from a rib?
>>56949763
>No, you're still equating malevolence with evildoing and not ill will
Ill-will is necessarily part of sin, or else no sin was involved at all. But what was more important in that post was the word "sin". If you understand what sin means, then you'd understand that the implication of evil = sin is that God can't be malevolent/evil because God can't (at least under logical conception) sin, as sin is reserved for men's action and intentions in respect to God's Will.
>>56949812
*Lel*.
>>56949870
You don't even know what omniscience means.
It has nothing to do with choices. Or forcing someone to choose a particular thing.
>>56949841
> We won't anthropomorphize God....but we will give it a male gender.
>>56949844
>What is a not-deity? I can't disprove a negative
There's no distinction between negative and positive statements. They're all positive statements, including not-deity.
>>56949924
take dna from rib, remove y chromosome, duplicate x chromosome, do some fancy genetic engineering, you got a woman.
>>56949947
I like you.
We did well in this thread.
>>56949924
No deity existed therefor no rib was ever made into a woman. It's really that easy to understand.
>>56949833
>I'll pray for you
Is this what you resort to when you've used up all the circular logic you can? I've caught you.
>it means to know everything
Does everything include all the decisions you'll make? Is god your creator? So does god create you already knowing all the decisions you'll make, in your illusioned free will as alluded to in >>56949485 that you agreed to?
Of course god isn't forcing you. But you are a toy, and god knows all the moves you do. As a toy you may think you have the option of doing something different. But god created you knowing every move you'd make already.
>>56949841
I know that theists don't advocate anthropomorphizing God in in the sense that he doesn't have a body or an image of a body, but how can you attribute God with human qualities such as benevolence or omniscience which require the framework of a human ego to even make sense?
>>56949858
>Sin - an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law
Since God's Will necessarily determines divine law at all times, you're right - God can't sin.
>>56950006
He will ask how God did all that too, don;t worry.
>>56949980
>We
God refers to Himself in male terms.
>>56949913
>he didn't affect it
Then he isn't omniscient.
>>56941932
Well, that is because you are christian wahhabist scum that read too much the kike testament.
>>56950039
Sigh.
It seems you have figured out the answer to one of the great questions of life.
Go to your philosophy professor, if you have one.
And present him/her with this view point.
>>56949988
I don't have a positive statement to put forward. We have zero examples of a deity so I have a big fat zero in my numerator in terms of probability.
>>56950066
just because you can do everything doesn't mean you have to.
>>56950066
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WORD MEANS
>>56950042
He refers to Himself in those terms. We aren't the initial attributors of those qualities to God - it was presumably God Himself.
>>56950044
What a cvck religion.
Enjoy your everlasting torture.
>>56950090
So, no rebuttal then? You can say you'll pray for me again if you'd like... I'll just pray to satan to counteract it.
>>56950061
The people who created your god gave him a male pronoun. Don't you just love how horribly human and flawed the bible is?
>>56950092
You can't actually assign a probability to anything that represents *real* probability in regard to postulates to begin with. It's either true (100%) or false (100%) as a matter of fact.
>>56950125
All knowing. If he doesn't know the choices you'll make, that is something he doesn't know...
Something unknown =/= all knowing.
I mean its simple english here guy
>>56950150
My rebuttal was to present to your philosophy professor so they could laugh at you.
>>56950145
I'm promised paradise, so I will enjoy that Sir Bong. Have a nice day m8.
>>56950197
That has nothing to do with choice, buddy.
>>56950197
if he knows them but still lets you fuck up, it just means he isn't a control freak.
>>56950156
>The people who created your god
You're just asserting that they did though - it's not necessarily the case, and the crux of the belief is that that assertion is untrue.
>>56950204
I go to a real university, not a private christian echochamber. The result of asking me to bring this to them is not what you'd hope for.
>>56950216
You are promised nonexistence.
