-233 Honestly, you cannot tell me you're an athiest evolutionist, order a steak, protest murder, and expect me to have an iota of respect for you, amirite?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Oh my god. You are back. What does eating meat have to do with anything?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Let me think... Well, if we are just evolved apes, isn't eating meat kinda like killing another human? Tell me; what is the difference between you and me, and a cow?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, I consider cannibalism as eating ones own species. The difference would be species, but hey, we are all animals. And sorry, we aren't just evolved apes. Don't worry, it's a common mistake. We merely have a common ancestor, at least with the theory of evolution.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

A common ancestor resembling a cross between man and ape. But did I say this was cannibalism? Huh? Or did I say it's the same thing. Tell me why killing a cow is *any* different from killing a human. Tell me why we're different.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Because, the path I thought you were going to take was "well that would be cannibalism!" because I've seen some of your other posts. Yes, common ancestor, but we branched off at that. Well, with your logic, it isn't different, which presents a good question, as a matter of fact. I guess because meat is.... "necessary", and it is for FOOD (yes, I'm well aware of vegetarians and all that), and that killing a human for FOOD is obviously frowned upon.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Have you heard of vegetarianism? But, principally, what is the difference between killing a human and killing a deer? Just tell me, don't beat around the bush.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I DID say above, though. Killing a human: Humans... dominate the globe. We see ourselves as the top species, and in some ways we are. A deer, meh. Society doesn't weigh the life of a deer as much as a human, seeing as we have have emotion, feelings, etc (not to say that animals don't, I believe we do)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@661638 (NevershoutTater): So you validate this based on 'society'? I may be wrong, but I guarantee that deer 'society' values deer lives above humans. But that is just speculation, for I cannot read minds. To me, it seems you are grasping at straws. Tell me, what is the difference between a human and a beast? Nothing is; we both have emotions, feel pain, and strive to sustain ourselves. Why, then, is murder frowned upon? (Note, I am not promoting murder. But you cannot say murder is bad if you're an evolutionist.)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying this is what the majorities reasoning is. You asked me what the difference between killing a human and a deer is, and I told you.... from a humans point of view. You said nothing on what species point of view it had to be from.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Actually, I also asked what makes murder wrong. And you never answered, besides "society frowns upon it," or something. What does make murder wrong? No atheist can back this up. They can't. It's impossible to validate without a god of some sort.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

They can back it up, you just don't see it as valid. I'm not atheist, I think I'm agnostic, so I'm not speaking for them. Murder is wrong because it is wrong to take a life unless it is for food. Simple as that.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Is it then? But I'm sure you have genuine leather boots, or a jacket, or any number of things made from animals. Plus, we don't need meat to survive, so why inflict needless murder? We can live perfectly fine off plants. Or at least, we don't need all the hamburgers we down. We DON'T need to kill all these animals for food; there is an overabundance of hamburger meat. Yet, you don't seem to be protesting McDonalds.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Actually, I am. What they put in their food is disgusting. You make some valid points, which actually make me think. But I'm not going to waste anymore time on THIS debate. No, I don't own anything that is made from real animals, other than my parents leather couch. Until next time.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I meant the meat, not whatever artificial poisons they load in there. What makes murder wrong? The taking of a life needlessly? Well, then, stop eating meat. That is why I don't have any respect for people who are evolutionists who indulge in meat-eating.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But Tater, if killing within a species= murder, what happens when animals of the same species kill one another? Birds, smaller vertebra, and several other species all dine on members of THEIR OWN SPECIES, so is that murder too, by your evolutionary logic?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The characteristic of the human mind which allows us to think the way we do is self-awareness. It is commonly accepted that animals are not self-aware which makes humans and animals unequal on a mental level. By the way, I am also a Christian, and I know that you are trying to do the right thing by standing up for your beliefs, but I think that the way you are doing it is causing more harm than good.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

its a good thing we aren`t evolved apes

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Let me clear this up. You belive God created humans and other animals. "Evolutionists" (aka people with some form of education) beilive evolution created humans and other animals. Nobody believes that humans are exactly the same as other animals.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Uh you don't know anything. Evolutionists believe that humans evolved FROM other animals, making us just like regular animals, only civilized. Does that clear it up? However, as there is no evidence that any species has ever changed into another, im fairly confident that your arrogance is unwarranted.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ignorance is bliss

by Anonymous 14 years ago

explain rather than using such closed-minded jabs...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"Ignorance is stupidity" also applies in this case.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ono

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'd be willing to bet money you can't come up with a better argument than tater

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm not even going to try. You're too ignorant, therefore I cannot take you seriously. As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said, "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action."

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Right. So, instead of admitting you are just as incompetent as tater, you resort to blaming me. Sounds fair.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The way you word your statements if full of contempt, which indicates an aggressive tone. Due to your contempt, I have no wish to debate with somebody who doesn't even respect the other person's ideas.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Of course I phrase my arguments with contempt; you're acting like you are capable of explaining it, yet I know it's impossible. The best you can do is "well we are humans so same species is bad." Yes, that is a *superb* argument. How about this; let your ideas speak for themselves. I don't have any respect thus far, because, well, the points made are illogical and stupid. If you can do better I'd be delighted to hear it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So you admit you think you're better than the rest of us? Classy. "well we are humans so same species is bad." lolwut. I honestly cannot decipher that. You're ridiculously ignorant if you denouce others' views without actually thinking about how they might be true. If you're soooo right, why bother proving your point? Hm?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Where did I say I was better than the rest of you? Or are you putting words in my mouth? That's respectable. "well we are humans so same species is bad." lolwut. I honestly cannot decipher that." That was pretty much the only reason I got. It was supposed to be dumb. But, of course, you needed an actual point to your post, so you had to pretend to be ignorant of that, and not just general stupidity. Nice. "You're ridiculously ignorant if you denouce others' views without actually thinking about how they might be true." Well, why don't you go ahead and prove me wrong, instead of just mindlessly critiquing my methods? "If you're soooo right, why bother proving your point? Hm?" ono I have nothing more to say about this drivel. Why can't you just go ahead and explain it better? Ah, but of course, you're TOO intelligent for that. Right; it's not the other way around.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"Of course I phrase my arguments with contempt." Do you not know what contempt is? I didn't pretend to be ignorant, that's preposterous. I didn't know not comprehending grammatically incorrect sentences makes me ignorant. I'm not going to even bother to waste my words on you in trying to prove you wrong, because in the end, it doesn't matter. You always think you're right, but I guess I'll attempt in one comment. "Let me think... Well, if we are just evolved apes, isn't eating meat kinda like killing another human? Tell me; what is the difference between you and me, and a cow?" Not everything on Earth evolved from apes, that's absurd. Cows have their own common ancestor, while humans have their own. We're a completely different species with separate DNA. If you payed attention in science class, you learn that mates must have similar DNA to reproduce. Cows and humans cannot reproduce, thus making us two entirely different species and completely unrelated to

by Anonymous 14 years ago

one another. Also, it's spelled 'atheist' The 'i before e except after c' rule does not apply to everything.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I apologize for my spelling. I was on my phone at the time, and did not catch my error. Seriously? That bit at the end? I almost burst out laughing! That's your excuse, not common ancestors? Woah. And to think I actually never expected a coherent response; how right I was. So, it's okay, because it's cross-species? That's more or less what tater was saying. But that's the best you can do? Let me think.. Hmm. Oh! How about: that doesn't mean anything; a life is a life, none more valuable than any other. Really, eating meat is okay from evolution standpoint, but it also condones murder. Yeah. I was right. You didn't do any better, but hey, you tried and that is all that matters.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You, sir, are an idiot.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Do elaborate.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Does he need to?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

WOW. Geoff owned you and you completely went off topic to try to prove your point. And the reason we don't kill eachother yet kill other animals for food? Fucking easy. We have instincts to mate and create new life within our species. We are not inclined to kill the same members of our species for food, because if we did we may as well cease to exist. However, we kill animals for protein in our diets. I'm aware there are other sources of protein, however none are as effective as eating meat. You tend not to see cannibalistic tendencies in other species, they seem to get the message, so why don't you?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

WOW you seriously only think Geoff "owned me" because you side with him. Someone agreeing with me would say I won. That right there shows your ignorance. Like I said up there, do you work in a mill? Do you need to be physically fit to survive? Nope; you can get a desk job and live easily whilst fat. Hey, at least you brought a new argument to light: instincts. However, that can only be possible with evolution, which doesn't exist, but FINALLY someone decently gave a half-way explanatory variable. However, does that mean that every single murderer goes against natural tendencies? What about war; that isn't preserving human lives. If it's instinct, why would we wish to KILL (not murder, kill. You also used "kill" In your post, which was wrong, but whatever,) in wars.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evolution doesn't exist? Evolution, by definition, is any process of growth or development. We see evolution in nature and society every day. To say that it doesn't exist is, quite frankly, bullshit. Whether you believe in the theory that humans evolved from other living creatures is a matter of personal belief, but don't assume that religion and evolution (or science in general, for that matter) are polar opposites that cannot coincide. Now, murder by definition is the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. Key word: HUMAN BEING. I'm not saying that the way animals are treated in slaughterhouses is okay or humane, and yes humans are perfectly capable of living a life with healthy meat alternatives, however, it is human nature to consume animals for nutritional purposes. This has been done since the beginning of the human race, therefore you could say the practice has been ingrained in our self beings. It is NOT murder.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

War has been done also, does that mean it's okay? Nowadays, whenever someone mentions evolution, s/he (or at least I do) means the theory. Microevolution, which you defined/described does exist, and can be witnessed.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

While you make a halfway valid point, war and ordering a cheeseburger at McDonald's are two separate entities.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

yeah... i'd definitely say scrantoncity won, actually. Geoff didn't have any evidence or valid points and convieniantly dodged Scranton's questions...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Thank you. Like I usually say, most people think the side they agree with won. Whether or not I won, I didn't lose, except in the minds of people who disagree.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

and @748932 (Otters_are_bomb): yeah same here, even though scantonicity is very arrogent about presenting his argument, he still makes more sense

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Arrogant* and I know, and thanks.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

sorry, i wasn't paying attention haha

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, I see your point.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

*gets out popcorn*

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Enjoy the show

by Anonymous 14 years ago

hahahahhaha

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You are the biggest idiot on amirite.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I applaud you, troll. Very well played.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You are pretty darn stupid. That is all. (:

by Anonymous 14 years ago

MURDER IS JUST WRONG. Humans are inherently good; we do not get our morals from society. If a being has sense and intelligence, it will also have a sense of good/bad and right/wrong - this is not derived from belief in a God. You do not need religion or a God to be a good person. If having a God can make some better people then that's 100% fine by me but it does NOT mean that people who do not have a God are 'bad' people. Please stop atheist bashing, it's getting very tiresome. I read a lot of it round here.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"Please stop atheist bashing, it's getting very tiresome. I read a lot of it round here." Funny, it's the other way around. Explain why it's wrong. If I were to think that murder were correct, could you tell me why it's wrong?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Did you seriously just ask someone to explain why murder is wrong? Because you're taking the life of someone else. And then they're nonexistent. Thats why. The end. Dumbass.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Hey man, good luck getting laid.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Don't worry, I don't have an iota of respect for you either.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

From an educated standpoint and not all this opinionated rage.. Humans are technically biologically engineered to consume animal meat... Our teeth are specifically designed with flesh in mind and to be able to tear and break down meet... We also contain the enzymes to break down and absorb meat in our bodies... Nutritionally... Without the help of a human invention ( vitamin pills) humans would contain many nutrient deficiencies... Which used to happen in past times such as the dark ages.. But with modern knowledge we know better... That's why we don't die at 40 anymore for the most part

by Anonymous 14 years ago

you make a great point, but all the periods ellipsis points are driving me insane.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

i was just thinking that

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Hey guess what? I'm all of those things, and I couldn't give half a shit that you don't have respect for me. More importantly, the feeling is mutual. To me, murder is wrong because I think it is. They're called morals. However, eating animals is not wrong to me because I don't think it is. See? It works both ways. I'm not saying it's right, just what I believe. And yeah, I guess that is mostly post-structuralism but that's how I was raised and how my society sees it. So I will continue not believing in god, believing in evolution, eating steak, and being against murder.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There's actually a very simple explanation for all of this: Killing other animals for meat and society's condemnation of murder actually coincide perfectly with evolutionary theory.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Do elaborate. Because thus far, nobody has.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, since "evolutionists" ( I don't know if that's the actual term) believe in evolution, they also believe in natural selection. Natural selection is basically survival of the fittest. It is to ensure that the species benefits in the future because the most advantageous genes are passed on to the next generation. The hunting and eating of animals ensures that only the strongest(or fastest, or smartest etc...) survived to pass on their genes, thus working within the constructs of natural selection. In addition to this, it also helped to establish our place at the top of the food chain and pave the way for the relative stability necessary for established civilization. Because humans are biologically omnivores and also a part of the food chain, they serve an evolutionary role within th elarger ecosystem by eating other animals. I'll get to murder in another comment.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Tell me, how many people do you know rely solely on hunting as a means of sustaining themselves? Zero, maybe one? Okay, then, don't pretend like we need meat to survive. I understand how you would believe that, but it doesn't apply today.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Tell me, how many people do you know rely solely on hunting as a means of sustaining themselves? Zero, maybe one? Okay, then, don't pretend like we need meat to survive. I understand how you would believe that, but it doesn't apply today.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Tell me, how many people do you know rely solely on hunting as a means of sustaining themselves? Zero, maybe one? Okay, then, don't pretend like we need meat to survive. I understand how you would believe that, but it doesn't apply today.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Tell me, how many people do you know rely solely on hunting as a means of sustaining themselves? Zero, maybe one? Okay, then, don't pretend like we need meat to survive. I understand how you would believe that, but it doesn't apply today.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Tell me, how many people do you know rely solely on hunting as a means of sustaining themselves? Zero, maybe one? Okay, then, don't pretend like we need meat to survive. I understand how you would believe that, but it doesn't apply today.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Your comment hadn't yet come up when I posted my next two comments. I typed all of them up one after another, so yours didn't show up on my computer. That's the reason for the first sentence in post below this one.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Now you may be thinking, "But these days we don't really hunt for our food we just farm" and you'd be correct. However, agriculture the domestication of animals would have been impossible if humans had not first established a position at the top of the food chain. The raising of livestock served a more basic purpose, and that was to provide the protein which is necessary for us to live. One could make the argument that killing animals for food is unecessary because our technology enables us to find other sources of protein, but that's a discussion for another day haha.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But I digress, now back to the crux of the matter: what makes killing humans different from killing animals? Well, from strictly scientific standpoint(and this may seem very cold) it's all a matter of evolutionary cost and reward. If we kill and eat other animals for sustenence then we help ourselves and, by extension, our species survive. If we kill other human beings, then it has the opposite effect by decreasing the genetic variety availible and possibly having a detrimental effect on the species as a whole. In addition to this, studies have shown that all animals, humans included, tend to show more protective behaviors towards those with whom they felt more kinship or had more genetic similarity. This would support the evolutionary explanation. A perfect example would be that we are more likely to risk our lives for family members than nonfamily members. It all serves an evolutionary purpose. And BTW, you misspelled atheist in your original post.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay. I personally can't come up with a logical, compelling reason for murder to be wrong when you consider that people kill animals for meat. But it doesn't exactly matter whether an individual can come up with a proper reason against murder, because most people aren't gonna do it anyway. Why? Mostly 'cause it's against the law, and if people found out, lots of bad things would happen, and then they'd be put in jail so it wouldn't happen again. Why is that? 'Cause someone decided murder wasn't okay, and made it against the law. In some comments, (I think) you said a life is a life, and human and animal lives are equal. But plants are alive too. Do their lives matter? If people suddenly decided not to eat ANYTHING that had ever been alive, we'd all die. We couldn't eat animals, plants, or anything... We'd have to live off milk and eggs! ...I think. Or maybe there's bacteria in them, and bacteria's alive too. So we couldn't eat them in case we killed the bacteria! So we'd all die.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

First off, plants can't feel emotions, or pain, or even recognize when their lives end. Structurally, plants are incapable of bettering themselves, and cannot change their positions. They, in no way, can do ANYTHING at all. So, in essence, they are alive, but not really. Are you really alive when you can't even recognize your own existence? At least you recognize that, according to evolution, a human's life is no more valuable than a turkey's.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well plants can grow... And they can change the direction in which they grow, and what about the Venus Flytrap? That one's capable of catching/eating insects! Pretty impressive for a plant. :P I think I heard of some research somewhere that might have slightly indicated that plants might be able to feel emotions/pain, but that could have been a myth or a fluke.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Would you kindly stop giving Christians a bad name? Thus far you have proven yourself to be a horrible, disrespectful person, one that makes me ashamed to be a Christian. Maybe you should think on the hatred you spew and how un-Christian it truly is. May God have mercy on you.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Oh, really? I'm sick and tired of people on this site who claim, or even think, they are a Christian, when they don't know the first thing about our Bible. Good luck to you, and read Luke 6, please.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Now you're telling people they don't know the first thing about the bible? (Gen. 9:3, 4): "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. . . . Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat." See, even god thinks you should order steak.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I know why I can. Atheist evolutionists don't believe in the Bible, so whatever God Says they don't believe. They have no reason why they should not murder if they eat steak.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What? That makes absolutely no sense. This is more a matter of morals than religion. All people have some sense of moral, and it is morally wrong to kill another. Of course, some people do it anyway because emotions can override morals at times. And don't think because someone believes in god or the bible makes them a perfect model of a person. plenty of people who have claimed to be Christians have committed acts of murder, or other such felonies, whilst some atheists on the other hand have lived generous and philanthropic lives.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, I'm saying that if they don't believe in God, whatever He says has no effect on them, rendering his grants useless, in their minds.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

what the hell is wrong with you man? ur screwed up in the head... like seriously.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Then it should be easy to refute this, right?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

........................ono ......................./..I .......................I_/I ..........................I.I ..........................I..I ........................./I..Io ......................../..I ......................./....I ....................../......I .....................o........o

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I hope you're not ignoring most of these newer posts (a majority of them are idiotic) I'm not an atheist, but I am an evolutionist, and I believe in God. I love steak, and like most people, protest murder. I see your point, that humans are animals, so how is murder of humans wrong, but eating animals not? I disagree, however. As other people have said, killing other humans goes against instinct because we have the desire to preserve our own species. We also have the desire to preserve ourselves, which is why if threatened by another human, we have the instinct to defend ourselves. That is why in a court of law, self-defense is ok. You countered this by asking if all murderers go against instinct. Yes, because murderers do not instinctively kill people. Humans have very strong emotions, which can override instinct and make us kill members of our own species in a fit of emotion. The reason why it is wrong is that we killed someone in a way against nature.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It is okay to kill animals and eat them because nature intended for carnivores or omnivores to consume flesh for nutrients. Humans are animals, and animals eat other animals. (Lion King moment) It's the cirrrrcle of liiiiife, And it moves us alllll. When animals kill animals, such as humans killing cows, they do so with a purpose of SURVIVAL. And unless you're going to tell me survival is wrong...I think this is a valid argument. People do not murder other humans for survival. Also, even though we must kill them to live, other animals' lives still have value. Today's society does not acknowledge that, which is wrong, but some people do. Ancient peoples used to give thanks to animal spirits for providing them with food, and they would only kill what they needed and no more. I know that people can make a conscious effort to become a herbivore, err, vegetarian, but human bodies cannot function properly on that diet. Yes, many people have desk jobs and do not need

by Anonymous 14 years ago

strength, but it is more than just body strength. Depending on the nutrient, your blood/flesh/whatever will become malnourished and can grow ill, and that goes against survival.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Actually, your entire argument has been countered if you'd scroll up. 1. Evolution didn't happen. This, however, is moot, so just ignore this. 2. The God of the Bible did not create us through evolution. This IS indisputable, for there is one way to interpret the Bible: How God intended us to. 3. Murder is equivalent to killing animals. I'm nearly certain you don't need the KFC double-down to survive. Nor the hamburgers which you consume, nor the chicken which you eat every Sunday. You are very capable of eating vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds. You will be equally as healthy, if not more so, refraining from eating meat. 4. NATURE doesn't intend for anything. No matter what religion you practice, nature is passive. 5. It isn't for survival, as I said, you can go without eating meat. Also, are wars unnatural? I'm pretty sure the entire war isn't based off emotion, as you claim. But, whatever.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Read and really consider what other people are saying. The entire conversation you've yelled at other people for being close-minded, but you haven't learned anything from anyone else, you've only said your point of view over and over. And learn something about evolution before you talk about it like you know all of it, a lot of your ideas are wrong, and there is a lot, lot more evidence for evolution out there than you think. The phrase "theory of evolution" is a misnomer. It's practically a scientific fact, it's just very hard to shake the word 'theory,' even gravity is still the 'theory of gravitational pull'

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"It's practically a scientific fact, it's just very hard to shake the word 'theory,' even gravity is still the 'theory of gravitational pull'" Ten thousand dollars to the one who proves it. Who witnesses one species (defined as such: "the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.") evolve into another (where they can no longer interbreed.) Can't be done, because it isn't scientific fact. But, if you want to trust some non-existent evidence, feel free.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Actually, there is an astounding amount of evidence in the form of fossil records, carbon dating, radioactive dating, bioluminescence, mutational clocks, and the biochemical makeup of organisms. Different scientists each do their own research in only one of the fields, the fact that all of them came up with independently, almost exactly the same evolutionary tree is as close to proof as mankind will ever get short of time travel. So stop arguing about things you have never studied.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I have studied it, more than you, probably. You have yet to give an example of proof. The tree is so messed up. Ever hear of Pre-Cambrian explosion? Why is there such a huge gap between species? Pretty much everything that *can* be explained by evolution *can* be explained by creation.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"Pretty much everything that *can* be explained by evolution *can* be explained by creation" care to explain the fossil record then?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah, here you go: It doesn't exist. What fossil record? It is non-existent. Scientists just paired up animals that seemed to be similar for no apparent reason. Well, I know why, but that doesn't make it factual in the least. I could correlate amirite posts, and put those that seem to be based off another in an order, but that doesn't mean that they are correlated in the least, does it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

how in the hell does it "not exist"? there are fossils in museums. they exist. they have had their relative ages calculated. we've debated that point before. they were found different distances underground, indicating different ages. they are correlated based on those ages. and we have fossils of creatures never accounted for in the bible.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Is there some list of creatures that exist in the Bible? Because I'm pretty sure the Bible's purpose isn't to list every animal. But I may be wrong; who'd know more, you, or me? Relative dates are such baloney. Tell me, how did they get the age window? From the fossils in it? How did they get the age of the fossil? From the window!??

by Anonymous 14 years ago

we already talked about carbon dating, im not gonna bother repeating. ok, so maybe there's no bigass list. but answer me this: how big was noah's ark? how many species of animals are there? could they all fit? tread carefully now...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Actually, carbon dating and radiometric dating needs to be discussed more. It's so utterly ridiculous how that constitutes evidence. Noah's ark was huge. 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. That's monstrous. Did you know today there's only about 5,000 species? Take out fish and insects, you're down to a few hundred. Species, as the classification of being able to breed. Pretty interesting, eh?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

so that's what, 450 ft by 75 feet by 45 feet or so. a football field and a little bit more. just the elephants, rhinos, and giraffes would make life interesting. i was reading in class just two days ago about how a 17th or 18th century scholar did the calculations on just how many extra animals you'd need in order to feed the carnivores for a year on the water. it's very interesting indeed how few species are left, and quite sad really. i should point out however that those 5000 species just account for mammals, you've got quite a few more to fit in yet. and finally, just cuz i feel like being this way, were there dinosaurs in biblical times?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah there were dinosaurs. Also, it was one of every kind. That's even less, just saying. You know, I think Noah was smart, don't you? Instead of getting adults, get babies!!! Well not babies but ones just old enough to survive. Whatdya think? Less food?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

1. You just can't say that so matter-of-fact. Are you a studied scientist? If so, forgive me. But while maybe I don't know that much about evolution, you don't know everything either. Can you prove to me that evolution DIDN'T happen? 2. You can't take the Bible at face value. Who wrote the Bible? Not the Lord. It was humans. And perhaps they originally meant the Bible as an analogy, not a true happening, and over time, people believed it true. If God created us just like it says in the Bible, where did dinosaurs come from? And cavemen? Unless you're telling me you don't believe in cavemen or dinosaurs. And on what day did he create Jupiter and Saturn and all the other planets? 3. I don't eat anything from KFC (what the heck is a double-down??) or hamburgers, and I definitely don't eat chicken every Sunday. I see your point, I don't need meat to live. But you completely IGNORED my argument about natural instinct and survival. A diet of nuts and berries and

by Anonymous 14 years ago

whatnot is not a healthily varied diet. And what about the people who are allergic to fruits and vegetables? I run cross-country, and when I come home, I have only about 15 minutes to eat. Which will fill me up better, 15 minutes of eating meat, or 15 minutes of eating veggies? (I'm a really slow eater, also) People keep telling me to gain weight because apparently I'm unhealthily skinny (I'm not), but will eating plants help me that way? 4. Nature has nothing to do with religion. And intention has nothing to do with passive...ness. Passivity? Hm. Anyway, we are part of nature. And we were just made to consume meat, along with plants. We're omnivores. 5.Why are you putting 2 points under 1 number? Anyway, see my point 1 about needing meat, and yes, you can survive on plants, I have nothing against vegetarians, but we were meant to survive off a varied diet. 5b. Um...yeah, that's exactly what I'm claiming. Wars are based off emotion. What else are they based off?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Wars are based off anger, greed, mistrust, jealously, hate, offense, revenge, desire, even love. All emotions. Oh, and sorry I have to make several posts, I just type a lot.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Sorry, finally I'm responding to your comment. First off, Pre-Cambrian explosion really diminishes the credibility of evolution. With no evidence, there is no need to disprove anything, as there's nothing supporting it. 2. If you believe in God's power, you believe in the validity of the Bible. I believe in God's power because some being HAD to create the universe (logic tells us this) and, what religion better than Christianity explains this? 3. It is a healthy diet. You can get all the nutrients, if not more from vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds. If you need to gain weight, use the powder. You don't need to slay animals just for your fill of meat. 4: well, what created us? Nature? How then, if you will, do you know we weren't intended to be herbivores? 5 As I've said, you don't need meat. Not today. 5b People have adequately answered this, but wars are based off corruption and wrongdoing.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

1. I can't really argue with you about this, because I'm really young and don't really know all the much about evaluation. I do believe it happened though. Give me a couple years to study. 2. I never said God DIDN'T create us. I believe in God's power. But do I take everything in the Bible literally? No, I don't think that God really made everything in 7 days or that Eve was made from Adam's rib. So why couldn't God make evaluation happen? Because there's more evidence supporting that, than that God made everything JUST LIKE the Bible said so. Because there's dinosaurs and cavemen. Something did have to create the universe, God did, through evaluation. But now I'm not really arguing this from an atheist's POV...so...yeah. 3. What's the powder? And maybe you can, but meat is much more effective. Meat contains all the necessary amino acids necessary for proper growth. And I'm going to be really hungry eating just a bunch of plants. I don't have time to sit all day

by Anonymous 14 years ago

eating plants so that I'm barely full enough not to die. 4. Because our bodies were made to process meat. Our teeth, acids in our stomach, other stuff that I'll probably learn later. I don't think we were created like "Well, they're going to be eating plants all their life, but I'll give them all this meat-eating equipment." 5. I JUST EXPLAINED HOW I NEED MEAT!! Repeating a point over and over is not a good argument! 5b. No. Corruption and wrongdoing offends people, or makes people angry, and those are emotions, and that causes a war.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@751949 (Alyssa): Obviously he/she isn't a studied scientist. He/she never studied science or anything exept whatever blashmemous crazy cult of "chirstianity" he/she follows.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I thank you for this, as otherwise i wouldn't have spotted allysa's comment.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, thanks for noticing my comment then. Now let's debate, and don't avoid any of my points, because in my opinion, I was pretty thorough in discussing yours. Also, if you are trying to convince people that you are right, you have to be open to the possibility that they might be right instead. So please try to be more open-minded.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Sorry for not replying; I literally have not had 10 minutes of free time in the past two days. If you'll comply, I'd rather wait until I can sit down and contemplate your point at my computer rather than countering with a terrible retort on my phone. I'll get around to it eventually.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay, I don't mind. I don't want a horrible argument from you anyway, I like to have a good debate.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Um, forgive me if i’m wrong - but wasn’t it the fact that humans started to eat red meat part of the reason why we evolved? Also, i’m becoming tired of people assuming atheists don’t have morals. Not only is murder MORALLY wrong, but its also against the law.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Can you just accept already that people have different opinions than you? Stop pushing your beliefs onto others. You're only embarrassing yourself.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evolution isn't an opinon it's a fact.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ain't dat da truth.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It's a theory, not a fact.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, nobody has respect for you.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Wow, I believe in God and evolution, but I eat meat. *sarcasm* I must be a moron. That, or going to hell.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, you can't believe in the Bible and evolution, so yeah, you probably don't believe in the Bible, so you're going to hell.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, I think that God created the world and evolution is the beautiful method our Lord chose to create the earth. People today can arely understand evolution, even if they believe in it, I'm not surprised they simplified the explaination in the Bible to something we can all understand. I actually heard something on the history channel, they think that the lizard that tempted Eve is an ancestor of some modern day lizards and snakes. I think Evolution is a beautiful way that God helps us to adapt to the world he made for us. It's really cool that he gave us such an amazing thing, a scientific mystery for us to figure out. Science explains HOW things happen not why, and I think evolution just explains how God created everything.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Golly you're spewing conformist, satanic drivel. Okay, keep up and I will disprove your argument in about three points. If you recall, Adam was made from the dirt. He was the first man. Now, there is a direct, complete (except for like 6 spaces) lineage from Adam to Jesus. This is about 4,000-6,000 years. Now, according to evolution, Adam would have to have been made 600,000 years ago. Woah! Not compliant with God's version. 2nd, the Bible is as clear as you can get about the time it took. It says specifically "the sun set, then rose, day two." Very clear. Incredibly clear. Only an idiot can misinterpret that, which you aren't. Are you? Third, evolution didn't happen. This is a moot point, but any time I try to debate someone, they always say science has proven evolution. Which is utter crap, and makes me want to throttle the person who told them that. In short, you can't have it both ways. The Biblical God did NOT create us, or any animals,...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

1.) All life was created from creatures that were so small, you probably couldn't tell the difference between them and the dirt, technically, we did come from dirt. 2.) God's time line ran differently than ours because He isn't human, God has a different sense of time and things go faster for Him. The calenders of the time were also far different from ours, so they're bound to say something different than our modern time line. And here's an interesting fact: When the heliocentric theory was first proposed, people called those scientists heretics because the Bible clearly stated in Genesis that the sun rose, not that the Earth turned to face the sun. One scientist responded to this by saying: Every word of the Bible is true. Only man's interpretation of the bible may be false. Only an idiot would believe in the geocentric theory because of the bible. Which you aren't, are you? 3.)No one had to tell me this.I can give you evidence later, but I'm out of space.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

First off, your first point is utter crap, as I'm sure you realized. You are trying to interpret the Bible to fit the evidence. Which it won't do, one, because there is no evidence, and two the Bible is infallible. You don't need to interpret it with some shady, utterly unintelligent methods, just to fit some "science." Which brings to my next point: give me any kind of evidence that we started from dirt. Or rocks, or soup. Is there any evidence for this? No? It's just a hypothesis, which cannot be tested. There is no evidence for the "scientific" explanation of life. 2: that is utter baloney, and you know it. So, God deliberately put false information in it? Huh? That's logical. Just to trick us? Yeah, that's cool. First off, it couldn't be any clearer. Have you even read Genesis one? Do it. Sun set, then rose, next day. ONE sunset, ONE sunrise. Don't try to play that off. That is factual, and anyone who tries to change that is an idiot. Which you aren'...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Which you aren't, are you?  3 I want evidence/proof of evolution. I've read two books for it, and honestly, the one book I've read against it absolutely owned those two. They're just a bunch of lies. There are so many lies contained within the theory of evolution it's ridiculous. 

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You can't dismiss Evolution on the basis of it having no scientific proof from scientists, when the same argument can be said for.... The Bible.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ah, but I never said the Bible was proved, nor am I taking your tax dollars to teach a lie in schools. It's not just that it lacks evidence, It's that all the evidence has been falsified. It's sad how they still preach it like the gospel truth, and most of the things have been proven false.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ever hear of the seperation of church and state? duh. I'm not saying God lied, I'm saying God gave a really dumbed down version of what's going on. Or maybe God explained it correctly, but the people of the time weren't intelligent enough to understand it, so they wrote it down as best they understood it to be. You've only read one book? No journals, no reports on studies done by scientists, just one book? For one thing, diseases are now mutating and evolving, which is why vaccines aren't working like they used to and people have to develop new vaccines to combat diseases they used to be able to fic.(If you think this is lies, look it before yeling at me.) Also, in a famous study two scientists did this experiment. There was a stream with two sections that were completely seperated from each other by a natural barrier. The sections were exactly the same except on section had predators in it. There was a species of fish in both sections of the stream. ....

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I read three books. One against evolution, two for. Now, I also heard seminars and researched against evolution. And I was taught by schools for evolution. I'm knowledgable on both sides. You realize that you described adaptation or variation? Are those bacteria entire new things? No, they're just better, more adapted bacteria. That's microevolution, chica. That experiment that you didn't fully describe is also variation or adaptation. Are those two fish entire new species? No! They can still breed with each other (assuming they could originally.) That isn't trans-species evolution!!! Also, read Exodus 20. It also says six days. God didn't create the world over billions of years. You're just making up your own hypothesis, which would probably be disproven with a little research.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The two scientists noticed that the fish in the predator section had lighter spots and were smaller than the same species of fish that was in the non-predator part of the stream. This test was done in nature, so there was no lab interference in the experiment. The scientists took fish from the non-predator area and put them in the predator area, then put the predator-area fish in the predator free water. After a few years of monitoring the fish, all the fish that started out with bright spots in the safe water had paler spots and were smaller than what their ancestors had been and they also produced mroe offspring. The group of fish that had started out pale and small in the predator waters had become larger, more colorful and produced fewer offspring tha their ancestors had. The reason they changed is because of natural selection. Brighter colors and large size makes one more obvious to predators, so you're more likely to die. (cont.)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

More offspring also increases the chances that your genes will be passed on, because the more children you have the larger number of offspring that are likely to survive and reproduce. so the ones that were more likely to be eaten in predator waters were the large ones with bright colors because they were easy to find, so they were the ones who were eaten and unable to pass on their genes, but the ones with genes for paler spots and smaller bodies lived and were able to reproduce, passing on their genes. Eventually, the ones with genes for bright colors and large size were killed, so there were no more bright colored, large fish who produced fewer offspring. Similairly in the group of fish who were once pale and small and produced many offspring, the fish changed to have bright spots, larger size and produced fewer offspring. With less threat, more offspring only meant less food for the fish, so having more offspring was a disadvantage there. (cont.)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Bright colors and large size didn't attract predators in this section because there were no predators, but it did attract mates, which meant they were able to produce more offspring. Because the fish with large size and bright colors reproduced more offspring than those without, soon the entire section didn't have anymore pale small fish and was completely full of big bright ones. You could definately find a more detailed and accurate account of this experiment somewhere else, but I think it was a very good example of natural selection at work. If you don't believe that, just look at a poodle. Domestication of animals is just controlled natural selection. How old do you think the earth is? Just a few thousand years? If you're going to call me satanic again, I think I should remind you the Bible is against mocking people and says you should not condemn other followers of Christ. You should be willing to follow at least those rules.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How many times will i have to explain this? That isn't trans-species evolution. That's adaptation! Those species could still breed, yes? That didn't create a new species. There is no evidence that that could ever happen. I didn't call you satanic. Where did I say that? Nowhere. I said you were spewing satanic lies. There is a difference.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You said, "Golly you're spewing conformist, satanic drivel." If this is what I believe, you're calling me satanic. Seriously, read other books about it. You can't decide you disagree with a scientific theory after only looking at one source. I see nothing wrong with believing that God created such a beautiful world through a beautiful method and is allowing us to discover what it's all about.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Let me get this straight: After telling you twice, that I didn't only read a single book, you then tell me that I've only read one book. If you think that adjective applies to you, maybe you should learn to speak the English language. What does "satanic" apply to: you, or your drivel? You're calling God a liar. The Bible says several times that it happened in six days. Twice it says something along the lines of: "The sun set, then rose, day X." You can't just disregard that. Either He made it, and in six days, or He didn't, and you have conformed to the satanic lies (Not you, the theory. Once again, as you're easily confused, the THEORY is satanic, not you. And by that I do mean it is one of Satan's methods to turn people away from God.) But, no, you're completely right, on all accounts, except these I listed, and any other one you can have without having evidence. Can you give me Biblical evidence that it WASN'T six days? What, you can't?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

God has a different sense of time than us. The bible even says that our lives last so short compared to God. why wouldn't six days be accountable for a few billion years to God? and again: How old do you think the Earth is? A few thousand years?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah, a few thousand years. Open your mind. Read the Bible. It cannot be more clear. It clearly says that it was SUNSET THEN SUNRISE NEXT DAY! Why can't you see this? Sunset. Then night. Sunrise. Then day. Next day. Not millions of sunsets and sunrises, next theoretical day. Anyone who interprets that differently is an utter imbecile, and shames the Christian faith with his/her close-mindedness. There is no way the Bible could be more clear to someone like you. What would convince you that it wasn't millions of years? It freaking lays it right out!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

you think it's only a few thousand years old? That's it, I'm out of hear. I'm going back to the places on the internet where you're allowedd to believe in dinosaurs and God at the same time.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You think it's millions of years old? Pfft, don't you understand logic? Don't you understand interpretation? Don't you know the correct use of here/hear? Well dinosaurs did exist. Are you familiar with radiometric dating? Let me enlighten you. Radiometric dating is the most worthless, useless, biased crap. Want to know why?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

no. And I don't care. You don't really have a right to be calling anyone biased anyway. I'm sick of your "logic", so I'm not even going to read it you respond.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't have a right to call anyone biased? Everyone has opinions, chica. Even the "scientists" whom you take at their word.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Can you think of a more logical approach to determining the age of fossils?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, according to the Bible, animals don't have souls, so it wouldn't count as murder. I think animals do have souls, but I still eat meat. I was a vegetarian for a while, but I always felt tired and I was always hungry. Humans need to eat meat to survive, it's just a fact of life.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Also humans are placed in charge of animals. However, I don't know how many times I'll have to explain this, but what the Bible says wouldn't affect an atheists' thought process. It would hold no consequence.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You misspelled atheist. A- meaning anti, and theist, meaning one who believes in god. When combined, they spell atheist. Not that difficult. When you argue against something, you might as well spell it right. Damn Kristchens.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I recognized that.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I doubt it, you don't seem very intelligently designed to me!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Comment number 665648: "@665273 (SassyGayBestFriend): I apologize for my spelling. I was on my phone at the time, and did not catch my error. " Owned.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Although God says slavery is ok in Leviticus 25:44, you do not own me. Also, because you are such a tool, I doubt anyone would want to talk to you on the phone. It's not much of an excuse to cover up for your obvious idiocy.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Obviously you lack human intelligence. It was implied that I was typing on my phone, rather than actually talking on it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, God fucked up when he made me then! It was not implied at all. The colloquialism, "on my phone," refers to TALKING on a telephone, not typing on one. And that still doesn't excuse your "obvious lack of human intelligence."

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No u. He didn't mess up, but apparently your parents did... Well, it was sorta shown when you see the little cell phone in the top left corner of my post.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ah, so you're too stupid to even type on a cell phone? If it's T9, it finishes the word for you, and if it's a full keyboard, even an idiot could type on it. Therefore, your intelligence is less than that of an idiot.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't understand how one person can be so irrational. I was using my iPhone, actually, and I had auto-correct off, AND I was neglectful to check my post for errors. And I acknowledged that I made a mistake, so what are you trying to prove?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You're calling ME irrational? HA. You justify all your facts by using a book that is thousands of years old written by schizophrenics who needed to make up stories to prove why things happened. And yet, you call ME irrational. Pitiful.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Hmm, have I ever used the Bible as evidence out of its authority? Nope. Anyways, we're done here. It's apparent that you have trouble stringing coherent sentences together, and it pains me to read your poorly constructed adjective clauses. No doubt you'll have some semi-witty retort lined up, and I'll be glad to hear it, but perhaps for the sake of your own mental instability you should refrain, eh?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ooooooh. You used big words. I guess that makes you, "smart." I win this argument, since your only defense is that you can string coherent sentences better than I.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ahem, first off, there is no argument, unless you're contesting that I made a mistake, and insisting that "athiest" is spelled correctly. Secondly, if I recall, you're the one who claims that big words confuse idiots, ie, me, and I never attested that big words means anything other than an ability to use a dictionary. Now, you, being the obvious troll, will more than likely assume I used a dictionary, and, by all means, think that. However, surely you'll recognize that that claim has no validity, and big words really don't bamboozle me. And yes, my only defense to a non-existent argument is that my sentences are coherent.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The argument is non-existent. An argument only exists if 2 or more people are arguing. You aren't, you're just making random claims against me, due to your inability to make a good point. This argument is over. I won. You might as well just not reply. Go pray instead to your "God." Maybe he'll actually help you win an argument sometime.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"The argument is non-existent." Yet, "This argument is over. I won." I think my irrational comment was founded.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ah, I was simply humoring you because you thought this was an argument. But it's not. If it was, I clearly would have won due to my superior intellect, and the fact that I am right.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"Ahem, first off, there is no argument, unless you're contesting that I made a mistake, and insisting that "athiest" is spelled correctly." Hmm. Really? Hmm. Evidence?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evidence? You're an idiot. The majority of people on this website would back me up on that one! http://www.amirite.net/491138/945498

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Hmm, I'm not one for public opinion. Keep in mind that 1/3 of people believe Obama is a Muslim, along with 10% believing Elvis is alive. Also note that this is a site inundated with liberals, and atheists, and they are unable to hold someone in high esteem because of disagreements.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@946433 (scrantoncity): You may not agree with public opinion, but it's still there, troll.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And you do agree with it? Hmm.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

In this case, I do. People disagree with you because you are wrong, troll.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Oh, really? Evidence?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

All your religious posts have been voted down.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, evidence that I'm wrong.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

My god, this is pathetic. I've told you ten times, but you continue to act like you don't know! I said, most people would agree with me. Majority rules.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, once again, I don't place much faith in majorities.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, I don't place ANY faith in Christianity.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I can see. You're the type of irrational guy, believing in probabilities less than 1 in the amount of milliseconds you believe have occurred.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think that choosing to not believe everything in a 2000-year-old book is pretty rational myself. Especially one that tells me to stone others to death if they don't believe the same things as me.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ahem, are you saying that valid history books today will be incorrect in 2,000 years, simply because they're old? If my history book is completely factual, in 2,000 years does it suddenly become falsified?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

People discover things. The bible is not history. Read this, and tell me if it is ok to do these things: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ahem, you never answered my question, instead deciding to bring up a moot point. Okay, "The Bible is not history." Fair point, but can you substantiate that?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The point is not moot, it's good. If you can't justify some parts of the bible, how can you justify ANY of it?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Lemme ask you again, can you substantiate that? Oh, I'll justify it once you substantiate your claims.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

My substantiation: The bible makes many claims. Many of them are true. However, the untrue ones outnumber the true ones. Many of these claims or statement would be considered unjust by even the most conservative of people. Two examples would be Leviticus 25:44, or Lev. 24:10-16. Due to these claims, the bible can not be taken as a credible source for history, or moral justification.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Wait, wait, neither of those inaccurate. First off, debate about Leviticus is a whole different thing, but, you said it wasn't historically accurate. Now, let's see some historical inaccuracies!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Alright. Jesus's birth and death. I actually will admit to knowing nothing about it, besides the story. Where else have these 2 events been documented besides the bible?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't think you understand... Just because there aren't any historical records does not mean they aren't true... I mean... Really? Is that the best you can do? Jesus changed the dates we use. Obviously His birth is about 2010-2015 years ago. Death? I'm not sure, but that isn't the point at all. An inaccuracy is what I want, not an undocumented event.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I believe I just pwnd you like the n00b you are. There are no historical references to the events I mentioned. Therefore, there is no way to prove that they are true. That's like saying that Hogwarts exists because the Harry Potter books say so.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Is that your best argument? That's sad... We're done here, I say, if your best argument is "You can't prove that! So it's wrong." Right. That's called an illogical conclusion; are you familiar with those?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, an illogical conclusion is one that can NOT be backed up with evidence. You are trying to get away with no evidence. Nice try. And if you can't prove something, why would I ever believe it's right? If I told you the moon was made of green cheese, would you just believe me without any proof of what I told you? If so, then you are an idiot!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Right. Tell me how, even though as near as we can figure it's true, since there is no proof, it's wrong, is logical. That is, how is it logical to say it's wrong without evidence to the contrary? Just because there isn't evidence (there is, btw), it's automatically wrong? Well then we can discount evolution, the make-up of the sun, the make-up of the middle of the earth, the existence of people before history, oh, and practically all the Africans who're currently dead, with no living companions. That IS an illogical conclusion. Also, while this is a blogging site, if you wanna know bout how Jesus isn't only outside the Bible, this guy articulates it well: http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-philosophy/101988-proof-jesuss-birth-death-missing-body.html

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Sorry it took so long to reply. When I read your reply, I laughed so hard I cried. This is just HILARIOUS!!! I can't believe you actually believe anything on that blog hahahahahahaha. Ok back to being serious. http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11379.html http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/uc/earth/5/uce5_1a.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/28/starsgalaxiesandplanets.geology http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-was-the-sun-formed.html And yet you say: "as near as we can figure it's true." You only "figure" that because you believe it. The bible is not proof that what happened in it is true. You have to have more sources to have credibility. And no, I don't mean some stupid Reader's Digest edition from 1989.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Its funny! Not one of those things have been observed, and, therefore, aren't scientific, unless scientists have experimented with blowing up planets. Okay, fine. Josephus. Tacitus. Suetonius. Phlegon. They all document Jesus, and, wait for it, none of them are in the Bible. We have a winner! We have a person who utterly ignores the main part of my post to focus on utterly trivial parts, and then fails there, too! I commend you for having the worst argument I've ever seen!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Those men are all christian. There I win. You can present no unbiased evidence. You have failed yourself, and the Christian community. Good job, troll. Next time you fuck up an argument with someone, at least act your age. It was fun kicking your ass. Bye.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What? Are you stupid? Josephus was a Jew. The rest were Gentiles. Tacitus was a ROMAN HISTORIAN. Also, you should note Pontius Pilate encounters Jesus. He's well-known. Well, he's known to intelligent people. The point is, you disregarded the main point of my post: how awful your argument is. Please comment on that.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You defend yourself through denial and accusations. You have made no valid claims, and carry no evidence to back your false claims. Though it may take a few times to get through your thick skull, I have won. The argument is over. Logic triumphs over idiocy.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Uh... Are you really that deluded? I can't tell if you're trying to bolster your confidence or you actually think you've won... You haven't countered a single of my points. You actually insisted that Josephus was a Christian... Plus, you haven't even acknowledged (despite my asking three times) the main point, which is the invalidity of your original argument. Also, you think the sun's forming was witnessed? Are you mad? I would just like you to A: Rebut this argument: "That is, how is it logical to say it's wrong without evidence to the contrary? Just because there isn't evidence (there is, btw), it's automatically wrong? " B: Rebut this argument: "Not one of those things have been observed, and, therefore, aren't scientific, unless scientists have experimented with blowing up planets." And C: Rebut this argument: "Okay, fine. Josephus. Tacitus. Suetonius. Phlegon. They all document Jesus, and, wait for it, none of them are in the Bible." You didn't counter 1.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@953542 (scrantoncity): You see, none of those can be countered. They are like my prediction about me getting sick tomorrow. I can't prove or disprove it, it's not a fact. Nothing you have said can be absolutely true. If you could see through your own obsession with being right, you would see that I AM making a valid point. You, however, are too deluded to realize it. I bid you goodnight sir, and good luck waiting around for the rapture. You lost this one, but you can always try harder next time! Like I said before, bye. troll.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Oh, well, to a logical person, you don't make any sense. You're right. So you have no case, yet you insist you won? Based off what? Maybe if you'd learn to argue, instead of gloating over a non-existent, psychological "win" you had, you'd stand a chance. You've yet to make a decent point that I haven't countered.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Once again, you defend yourself with denial and accusations. Surprising, since you act like an "expert" on arguing. Logic triumphs over idiocy. Goodnight troll. Keep whining about my "non-existant, psychological 'win'" I had. Maybe your mommy will care.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ah, once again, the lack of a rebuttal confounds me. I don't know what you're basing your win off. Can you elaborate?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Elaborate? Yes. You have no form to your argument. Rather than making a valid point, you just defend yourself against my logic. I'm done here. I've explained it to you enough times. Maybe you can find a big kid to help you with the 3 syllable words.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Uh... Okay. What logic, exactly?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Using scientific evidence is unarguably more logical than using faith to justify facts. I'm done. Don't bother replying, I won't read it. Troll.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Oh. So basically you're just trying to come up with a reason why you won?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have used the word, "colloquialism," because you don't understand big words.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

This argument just made my day, i dont understand why you all try to argue with him. Its blatantly not going to work. Accept that people believe different things, and everyone could be wrong about things and just move on.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think that scrantoncity should firstly read up about evolution (even if he doesn't believe in it) and THEN argue with people, once he actually knows what he's talking about

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ahem, care to debate me?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, debating with you is boring. We all know you're gonna lose! Haha. Trolllllll!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Once again, you lack evidence, and a point. I applaud you for wasting everyone's time.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Nah, I gotta point. My point is: you don't know what you're talking about, and you're a douche bag! How's that for a point, troll?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Any supporting evidence?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes. Everything you do and say. ;)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's not evidence. Anything specific?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What I want to know is why you expect us to have any respect for you if you don't even take the time to think about what was just said. yes, you can have your own opinion, that's perfectly acceptable, but the purpose of strutting them about, like you're doing, is to actually listen to what the other party has to say about it. that's why no one gives you respect. It's not for your religion or values; it's because you don't even bother to think.

by Anonymous 14 years ago