Technically, if you believe in evolution, you either have to be a vegetarian, or a cannibal, amirite?

To clarify, a cannibal is one who partakes in the eating of one's own KIND. Not species. Kind.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Kind means "A type, race or category; a group of entities that have common characteristics such that they may be grouped together"

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Right.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

oh boy. evolution and vegitarianism. if this gets posted on the home page..

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Trust me, it won't. I made sure of it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're cool. Under what basis?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Uhm...why?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Uhm because it's eating the same time? What separates us from cows? Or dogs?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Same kind* not time. Im on my cell phone.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The fact that they are different species and therefore can be called different kinds of animals.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're an idiot.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If the definition of an idiot has *evolved* into being correct, then yeah, I am. You realize that animals are the same as people, in the theory of evolution. What gives you the right to hunt them? You used to be the same species before you evolved away. Why can you eat them?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

As in kingdom, yes we are the same. As in species, False.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ahem, read the first comment. Same KIND. We are just animals. We eat animals. We are cannibals. Transitive property.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Kingdom and Species are very different. You don't see me eating Poison Ivy because its the "same kind" as cabbage.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If a wolf eats a dog, it's cannibalism, right? Not same species, but same kind. Well, take that relationship back even further, and everyone is the same kind. And everyone is a cannibal.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Scranton, lets go over 7th grade science, it is kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. Do you see the word kind in there? No

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly! Well done. "Kind" is whatever your input is. Naturally, since humans are animals, we are cannibals. Because honestly, intelligence is NOT what we have on the cows.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

cannibalism is defined as one member of a SPECIES eating another member of the same SPECIES. Animalia is a KINGDOM, not a SPECIES

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It wouldn't be cannibalism. It would have to be the same species.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No scientist has ever said animals are the same as people. If you actually knew anything about science. You would realize that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I-I-I just can't... W-W-Wha......

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If this is so, I am glad. Meat is delicious.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i don't think you understand cannibalism

by Anonymous 13 years ago

species (noun): a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. Species=kind. Evolution states that animals can evolve into different species through the process of speciation. Therefore, if you eat an animal of a different species, you are also eating an animal of a different kind, which would not be cannibalism.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ah, but, besides scientific classification, what makes us different? Obviously this is a troll post, as it doesn't make you a cannibal, but no one has been able to explain why. The only thing evolutionists believe that makes us different from other animals is scientific classification. Which means that the meat we eat is also indistinguishable from us, resulting in our eating of animals identical to us excluding makeup and scientific classification, which leads to cannibalism. Obviously all my comments have had some sort of fallacy in them, but it depresses me that no one can argue any better than this^

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"To clarify, a cannibal is one who partakes in the eating of one's own KIND. Not species. Kind." That comment was redundant because species and kind are the exact same thing, according to both the dictionary (which, in this case, was my source) and science. And also, I don't need any evidence "besides scientific classification" to back up my point. Why? Because I happen to believe in it.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh, so just because YOU believe in it, it automatically becomes true, right? You don't need facts to back it up as long as it makes sense. Eh, not really. Science classifies wolves and dogs as difference species, but they can breed together. Same as donkeys and Horses, although the offspring is infertile (mule). Horses and zebras are the same "kind" even though they aren't the same species. Lions and tigers are the same "kind" even though they aren't the same species. Shall I continue?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"Oh, so just because YOU believe in it, it automatically becomes true, right? You don't need facts to back it up as long as it makes sense." Pure hypocricy. Need I say more? And, while animals such as lions and tigers can breed with each other, they do not do so naturally. If a group of lions and a group of tigers lived in the same environment (which they wouldn't, but let's just assume they did) they wouldn't breed with other, they'd breed with their own species. You don't see lion-tiger hybrids in nature. And if you want to get technical about it, they're in the same class, not kind.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, actually, do say more. Because I'm quite sure I can tenably hold up my beliefs; can you? Can you give me any evidence (don't even bring up the supposed "fossil record" unless you want a rant on your stupidity) that one species evolved into another? Did anyone witness this? Have you heard of the Pre-Cambrian explosion? No? Hmm. Check it out: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/life-explosion That's because "Kind" isn't a scientific classification. They still CAN breed. Now, according to evolution, tigers split with lions 3.2 million years ago. Now, with human's split of some 800,000, shouldn't we be able to breed with chimps?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ever heard of Darwin's finches? That was speciation, and it has been witnessed. Yes, that was on a very small scale, but it was also over a relatively very small period of time. And I don't believe any human has ever attempted to breed with a chimp (for obvious reasons), so it can't be proven that it's impossible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, you're right. I want to see a possible artificial insemination of a female chimp. Pffffft. Is that one species into another? Or is that one species into the same species. Well, once again, you fall into science's trap. By one classification, I think they are different species. But, back to the breeding thing, they are obviously the same kind, and should be treated as such. Those finches are nothing but a stupid trick. That isn't trans-species. That's variation. Try #2?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How is that a srupid trick? The finches stopped breeding with each other. That, by definiton, is speciation.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But they are not incapable of breeding together.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Correct.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Can you give me any evidence from an actual scientific source instead of some website like www.dumb-fundamentalist-attack-on-on-science.com?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Listen, you're just like all the conformists. Tell me what exactly is flawed with those websites. What? Also, you seem to be under the impression that anything contrary to your beliefs is wrong. Well, thanks for defining close-mindedness.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If you find a link that was written by someone with a high degree (like a Ph.D) in a science like biology or paleontology that provides evidence for an alternate theory, I will actually read it and take it seriously like I do with the theory of Panspermia. Even though I don't believe it's true, I acknowledge that Panspermia is possible. Though there is no proof that it happened, there is also no proof that it didn't happen. On the other hand, creationism has been proven to be wrong and illogical.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My goodness you're brainwashed. First, how was creation proven to be "wrong and illogical." Okay, do that first, and then we'll continue.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The illogical part is easy. We know that the weakest of animals are more likely to get eaten by predators and are less likely to mate and pass on their genes. It follows that when the weakest animals are killed off and the genes that made them weak are eliminated from the gene pool. Therefore, the population will go stronger and stronger through each generation. It also follows that when a population changes it's environment, the population will change to fit it. This is why foxes are often white in snowy areas and reddish brown in forest areas. This is logical. By measuring the age of the earth, we know that the Bible's assertions about the earths age are inaccurate and by examining the fossil record we see that most species are extinct. We see bacteria and viruses evolve before our eyes to adapt to new medicines. That proves evolution occurs. All advances in life science are based on the fundamental knowledge that evolution occurs.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay, you gave like three examples of VARIATION OR MICROEVOLUTION OR ADAPTATION. NOT macroevolution. Tell me, are those foxes still foxes? Or are they coyotes? Are those bacteria still bacteria, or are they viruses? You just gave examples of observable adaptation, NOT evolution. Also, the fossil record is FAKE and FRAUDULENT. YOU don't know what you're talking about. Did you know the probability of the universe creating itself is like 1/10^155? http://nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=291

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well if 10^155 universes tried to create themselves and failed but one was successful, that statistic doesn't disprove evolution. "Mirco-evolution" is just as much a part of the theory of evolution as "macro-evolution". Please explain to me how you believe that species evolve overtime but were not created by other species evolving overtime. What makes you think you know anything about evolution? Do you have any credentials in the field of science at all? Have you even studied evolution in school? Have you attended college?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Honey, there's nothing to believe if It's all fraudulent. Adaptation can be observed. That doesn't mean macroevolution is true. Has macroevolution been observed? No. Tell me, will my iPhone ever become a Droid? Apple can change the apps, the music, the web browser, the keyboard, and the texting, but it will never become another phone. It will always be an iPhone. Microevolution can only do so much. A cat will never become a cow.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"Macro evolution" hasn't been observed because it takes too long, not because it hasn't happened. Your phone can't be killed or reproduce so your metaphor doesn't work. A cat may evolve into something different just as ancient mammals evolved into cats. Why would scientists all around the world decide to make up evidence about evolution?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Seruously? Because they want to deny te existence of a supernatural being, holding them accountable for their actions. Ask Haeckel yourself. Nah, the metaphor does work. It can be upgraded, but only to an extent. Just as the animals. Question, do you know of any ways that information can be added to the genome?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I didn't ask why one guy would lie. I asked why thousands of scientists would form a hundred year long conspiracy about the origin of life? Evolution does not in anyway disprove the existence of God as most people who believe in God believe scientific fact as well. I don't know how many ways information can be added to the human genome and I also don't know how it is relevant to this discussion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No, that's all of them, and yeah, that's why they all do it. So they won't be held accountable for their actions. No, not the One True Living God. Also, it CAN explain it, and that's why they lie about it. No, it's essential to evolution, as they need mutations which ADD information. Find one way which that is possible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That makes no sense at all. You haven't told me why thousands of scientists would form a hundred year long conspiracy or how evolution disproves God or how the human genome is at all relevant to the discussion. If you stopped referring to everything as it or they, I might have a clue what you're talking about.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh my gosh. You understand that people wouldn't want to be held accountable for acts of moral wrongdoing, right? People wanna be able to do as they wish (drugs, sex, etc) without eternal punishment. Now, scientists want to deny the existence of God to everyone, including themselves. So, if they tell lies loud enough and often enough, they can convince everybody. The scientists have the incentive and the means. Now, for the modus operandi, they just falsify some data, like in global warming, and BAM! evolution theory. Evolution is directly contradictory to God's Word- the Bible. Also, if scientists can "prove" that the universe can be created without a supernatural being, then there doesn't need to be one, and they can continue being atheist. Evolution requires that mutations add information so species can evolve and upgrade. What is one way that information can be added to the genome?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If evolution disproves God, why do millions and millions of people believe in both evolution and God? You don't need to answer that. I already know what you'll say: it will be something along the line of "Those people are stupid, cruel, and not true Christians because they don't believe that my personal interpretation of scripture is the true word of God". Many people believe in both God and evolution. Not everyone sees the two as contradictory. Therefore, Christians who believe in evolution feel the exact same obligation to do good since and feel they are just as accountable for their own actions. Believing in evolution does not lead to hatred and corruption

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If the Bible tried to explain all of nature and all of the mysteries of God it would be too long for anyone to read in their lifetime. Obivously the Bible can't explain all of science an history. The writers of the Bible only included things that were important from a theological perspective. They oversimplified it. Instead of God going on for pages and pages about created life by compiling organic molecules together into units called cell, they just presented the fundamental theological truths in way that people could understand.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah, about that... No. That isn't even a little bit true. Why then, would they save five times it was a period of 24 hours? And why, then would God bring it up in the TEN COMMANDMENTS that He created the world in 6 days? Huh? Just lying? Ill tell you why- because you CAN. Yeah, you can believe that a god started evolution, but that god really isn't needed at all if the universe could've created itself. Also, there's no evidence for that at all. No, anyone who tries to diminish God's power, invalidate His Word, and change It to suit their needs is no Christian.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How do you know what a day is to God? Also why wouldn't God be needed if the theory of evolution were true? You don't own Christianity and therefore you have no right to decide who is Christian and who isn't.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Read Genesis 1, and tell me a day isn't 24 hours. Read it. It says very explicitly that the sun set (once) then rose (once). Here: http://www.learnthebible.org/length-of-the-first-day-in-genesis.html (Don't disregard it. It isn't "biased" or "not credible" just cause you disagree. He articulated my arguments.) Also, here is why you're wrong: http://www.missiontoamerica.org/genesis/days-of-creation.html Once again, don't disregard them. You simply CANNOT interpret the Bible that way. No, I don't own Christianity. However the Bible is clear on what it says. And anyone who picks and chooses what to believe essentially place themselves above God's Word. Which is unacceptable.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exodus 35:2: God demands that everyone should be killed that works on the sabbath day Deuteronomy 21:18-21: God demands we kill disobedient teenagers Deuteronomy 22:13-21: God demands that we kill women whom are not virgins when they marry. You can argue that I misinterpreted argue these specific verses but I can always find more. The Bible fits the context of ancient society so many passages seem outdated and outrageous. If we were to follow the Bible exactly as it is written, we would stone a ton of people. Christians must consider the deeper meaning of the Bible in order to follow the Word of God in modern society. We should take lessons about how Shepherds should care for their sheep and find ways to apply them in a business environment. I am not suggesting the Bible is wrong. I am trying to say that the truths described in the Bible go beyond human understanding and are too profound to be explained in a few hundred pages.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What you don't understand is the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They aren't applicable toddy; they were laws for the JEWS to lead sanctified lives. Not us. They were just a bunch of laws for Jews.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That is beside the point. There are tons and tons of passages that don't make sense in today's world. Stop avoiding the larger argument by complaining about minutiae.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh, okay. Go for It. Not in Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay. Let me know if any of these are wrong. Here I go: Exodus 35:2 Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it **shall be put to death**. Exodus 21:20-21 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, **for the slave is his money**. Numbers 30:3-16 A woman can’t make a vow unless her husband allows it. Exodus 21:15 Whoever strikes his father or mother **shall be put to death**. Do you want to hear more or are you good?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Those are all civil laws, designed to keep order in ancient Israel.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly! The Bible fits the context of ancient civilization and certain passages are not perfectly suited to fit modern society. Therefore outdated references to ancient views on science such as Psalms 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved" and the creation of life need not be treated like scientific fact but as theological doctrine. As the authors of the Bible were limited by the scientific knowledge of their time, we can respect their wisdom while we acknowledge the flaws in some passages.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Woah honey you just took a giant leap. There is a huge difference between civil laws designed to keep the nation running flawlessly, and absolute fact, as told by our God. You cannot, at all, deny God's creation of the earth. Also, evolution never happened. There is a massive difference between "Don't do these things," and "The Lord your God did these things." Massive difference.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Still, we know today that there are scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. Some examples include: Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19) After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. (Genesis 2:18-22) It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than a few weeks. It's defiantly possible that it took them that long but they must have been terribly slow walkers (Numbers 14:33, 32:13) This verse mistakenly says that the hare chews its cud. (Deuteronomy 14:7-8) The sun moves around the earth (Psalms 19:4-6) Believing that the Bible contains inaccuracies does not mean one is not a christian or one does not believe the word of God. If we acknowledge that parts of the Bible are inaccurate why can't we acknowledge life that evolved?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Read the Bible. Don't just look for inaccuracies. Because if you actually read it, there aren't any. 1: God also made light on the first day, but the sun on the fourth. How is that possible? It's to show that God, not the sun, gives light to all things. HE is the source of all light, not the sun. 2: Really? Who said anything about species? Plus, it was only animals, no insects. That limits it. Also, it was KINDS, not species. There are only about 2,000 different kinds. And did you know Adam is probably much smarter than anyone today? He came pre-programmed from God. He's much more equipped to do that than we are. 3: Seriously, READ THE BIBLE! They didn't walk straight. They got lost, and wandered around for forty years, because of God. They had to be taught a lesson. SERIOUSLY READ THE BIBLE. Also, what does "defiantly" have to do with anything... They weren't defiant... 4: That is a metaphor. It LOOKS like the hare is chewing the cud, so people back then...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Back then THOUGHT the hare chewed the cud. It would've caused a lot of confusion to say "just as the hare chews the stuff that looks like cud, but isn't really cud, even though you all think it is, so you're wrong." It also would've made them distrust the validity of the Bible. Do you know how historians interpret primary sources? Yeah, research that. 5: I don't know what Bible you're reading (or not)... but it doesn't say that at all.... Seriously, read the Bible, rather than googling inconsistencies. Honestly, you haven't listed one nonfactual thing. You disgust me. You are trying to find falsities where there aren't any. Yeah, anyone who doesn't believe in God's creation isn't a Christian. Also anyone who believes in evolution is an imbecile, incapable of accepting ideas rejecting their "factual" religion.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You Mr. Bible expert should know there are minuscule unimportant inaccuracies in both science and history present in the Bible. One of these is their failure to understand pi others are mentioned above. That doesn't mean Christianity is a lie, it just means that the authors of the Bible were limited by the science of their time. I won't waste time by Googleing and checking more obscure passages (I checked every single one of those in my Bible btw) I think you explained it well when you said "Back then THOUGHT the hare chewed the cud. It would've caused a lot of confusion to say "just as the hare chews the stuff that looks like cud, but isn't really cud, even though you all think it is, so you're wrong." It also would've made them distrust the validity of the Bible." The same principle applies to evolution and the Big bang. If the Bible would have explained those things it would have caused great confusion and made people abandon the Bible.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Uh, no... Way to absolutely fail in response. Instead of actually replying with relevant information, you decided to drag out a terrible response with no point. So what... You admit that all those are wrong? That you *could* find more, but won't (can't)? Once again, you don't seem to recognize the differences between things. For some reason, youre unable to distinguish between "This happened." and "here's a metaphor." I don't know why. Maybe stupid people can't understand the Bible. It really isn't that hard. There is an immense difference between that metaphor, and the Creation (which is referenced about ten other times). Dang you don't know your acclaimed faith at all. At all.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I can distinguish between "this happened" and "here's a metaphor". Let me demonstrate. Evolution: this happened. Now, here's a metaphor: the story of creation. You're right in that those inaccuracies are mostly metaphors and legends describing God, not fact. I believe most of the Bible is just like that: metaphors and descriptions, not real fact. I could copy and paste more random biblical contradictions from random websites but I don't feel like it, it wastes time, and you'd find something wrong with them anyway. I don't know why you keep attacking me and calling me names. If you want to argue, attack my premise and my logic. If you want to have a shouting name calling match, start a new comment thread. Why do you care if people believe in evolution anyway? It does no harm to society to believe in evolution. It's not like believing in human sacrifice or cannibalism or something damaging like that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm just curious, how do you believe the earth travels around the sun contrary to the Bible without contradicting your fundamentalist interpretation? So maybe I'm not a Bible expert but isn't there some passage that says it's not good to call people imbeciles and telling them they are disgusting? Just wondering.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't know how dumb you are, but didn't we JUST go over this? Tell me where it says that. Because the verse you listed didn't say that at all...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Going to pop in and say she broke you down pretty well there. I won't be returning to this page, so insult me if you like. :)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

A species is defined (IRL) as being able to produce fertile offspring with itself, to be more specific. If they can breed but offspring are strike, it's just a genus.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

TROOOLLLLLL!! IN THE DUNGEON!!!!!!!

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I can't even believe this got YYA's...do any of you understand evolution?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You just went full on retard

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Science class motherfucker do you take it

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah adding the word "technically" doesn't make your point any more valid.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

by Anonymous 11 years ago