If it can feel pain it's on the same level as a human as far as abuse goes.
so... instead of getting rid of a child molester... you would rather rid the world of a fish?
I agree to disagree. Animal abuse is not wrong, how else am I supposed to whip my hare back and forth?
Animals to me, are on a higher level than humans. We came last, and they're really the only reason weve survived so long
Yeah, a whole day makes a huge difference!
It's called evolution, it's actually the accepted creation theory of the Roman Catholic church
Yeah well, the RCC doesn't speak for everyone, AND, the RCC doesn't even know what it believes, so forgive my complete disregard for that input.
Right, evolution? Ohoho don't get me started.
First off, it didn't happen. Secondly, no way does it coincide with Genesis. Here: http://www.scripturessay.com/ar...&amp;id=42
I'm roman catholic and I agree that genesis is a beautiful story, but that's all it is, a story. It was created at a time when science virtually didn't exist in order to answer questions people had. In fact, that's pretty much the reason every religion was created; to answer questions that were beyond people's realm of thinking thousands of years ago (yes I know that sounds very sacrilegious). It's important to take some of what the bible says with a grain of salt; a lot of it just isn't applicable anymore. I consider myself a Roman Catholic only in the way that I believe there is a power much larger than ourselves and I try to follow the example of Jesus and continue his work. As for how the world came to be, I put my faith in science.
Yeah. There's only one problem with that. Genesis isn't a story. Is there ANYTHING at ALL that suggests it isn't true? Anything legitimate, valid, and conclusive? No. There isn't.
There is, however, something shady about evolution. Why would so much evidence be faked? Why would that be the case, even in modern times, if it were as scientifically valid as most claim? Huh?
You suck. That's all I have to say.
Lol. Incapable of defending your beliefs, eh?
no, she's not incapable of defending her own beliefs, it's just that she is smart enough to realize she's arguing with a troll.
What suggests that Genesis is a history text? Nothing. Your case is invalid.
Lol. What a terrible retort. Good job.
Incapable of defending your beliefs, eh?
You don't have an argument, buddy. What suggests it's historical? Everything. The point of Genesis is to be a history of the beginning, hence the name. There is nothing at all suggesting it isn't. Common sense tells us it's purpose, I'm sorry you lack that.
There is nothing that shows Genesis must be taken historically. NOTHING. Saying that it is in the Bible is a null point. You believe it to be history. Fine, that is your belief, but it is not mine. Get your head out of your ass and see that there are other beliefs out there.
Lolwut? Yeah. It's in the Bible, therefore infallible. Nothing shows that it SHOULDN'T be taken literally, so it should.
Show me error in the Bible.
Nothing shows that it shouldn't be taken literally, so you are you to say that it should.
Error in Bible:
Lol. That website is terrible. I read like ten of them, and either it's worded terribly, or there's no contradiction.
No, your just a dumbass who can't see beyond his own viewpoint, and that are, in fact, contradictions in the Bible.
And yes, there is nothing saying that the Bible should not be taken literally. But there is also nothing that says it should be. So then, who are you to decide how the Bible should be taken for all Christians?
Well, typically, when everything is God's own Word, the essence of Truth, giving an accurate historical account, it's literal. Otherwise you're placing your own opinion above God's.
Woah. Let's not resort to insults. There aren't. Those were just crappy example.
Genesis is not an accurate historical account. You have no reason to say it is, just as I have no reason to say that it isn't. There is no way to know. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
And that website has many contradictions, you are just too narrow-headed to see any validity to anything you don't believe.
You may believe what you will, but your going around spreading lies you're incapable of backing up is just pathetic. Basicall what you've done is asserteda point, then, when asked to substntiate it, you insult the other, and instead say "No u!"
I have backed it up. You are the one incapable of doing such a thing. All you have said is "The Bible", which is NOT adequate proof. I showed you contradictions in the Bible, and you closed your eyes and had the thought "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist". That is why I insult you, because you can't open your eyes and see how others see. You don't have to agree, but you should at least see.
Oh. I see letters types out. But the coherency is lacking.
Lol. What have you asked for? Infallibility is impossible to prove.
And I hate the new mobile site.
Go down ti the bottom and click "basic mobile site" or something like that. It will take you to the old one. I learned that the hard way.
Thank you good sir.
If it's impossible to prove then it not infallible.
And see? You can't back up what you have said. I made points, you have no rebuttal, so you pretend you can't read.
Actually no...if you could find one legitimate error it wouldn't be infallible...
That site had many legit errors, you just refuse to open your eyes and see that.
Not ones I saw and I read ten.
They are, but once again, you refuse to open your eyes and even think of something you don't agree with.
If that's true, why don't you bring them here so I may show you why you're wrong?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."
Hey, I give you props for compliance, even if I must utterly destroy what you copy pasted.
Can one not be both? Well, look at Ronald Reagan. You can be peaceful, but, when urged, you go into battle with the full ferocity of war.
"My Father is greater than I-- In John 14:24, Christ tells his disciples that the Father had sent him: i.e. in his quality of Messiah, he was sent by the Father to instruct, and to save mankind. Now, as the sender is greater than the sent, John 13:16, so in this sense is the Father greater than the Son; and in this sense was the passage understood by Origen, Jerome, Novatian, and Vigilius, who read the text thus: The Father, ὁ πεμψας, who sent me, is greater than I. It certainly requires very little argument, and no sophistry, to reconcile this saying with the most orthodox notion of the Godhead of Christ; as he is repeatedly speaking of his Divine and of his human nature." http://bible.cc/john/14-28.htm
For the next: "These verses don't necessarily contradict each other inasmuch as they capture a predicament. Just as we have sayings along the lines of Ignorance is bliss and The truth hurts, the Bible also relays the dilemma between the
truth's ability to both enlighten and distress." http://www.thedevineevidence.co...eological.html
"This is a contradiction which I feel is given more attention than needed. Obviously we all die- the wicked and the
righteous. Psalms is praising the abundance of God's people in the future whereas Isaiah (composed in a
completely different century and under totally different political circumstances) is lamenting the death of the
righteous which results in the decay of society." Same site. Note: They eloquate it far better than I, therefore, I let them handle it.
For the war and peace excerpts, I interpret the man of war or man of peace to be the general likelihood of a being (God or human). Beings with sense do whatever is necessary, even if it goes against their natural tendencies. I took those verses as describing the natural tendencies of God. One says war, one says peace. I find that a contradiction, but what you said is valid as well.
I take the righteous excerpts as that the righteous will do to heaven (Ps), and the righteous will go to Hell (Isa). Yes, everyone dies, but I think this is more talking about the afterlife, where Ps proclaim that the righteous will go to Heaven, and Isa proclaims that the righteous shall perish (go to Hell).
I don't care how you interpret it. You're wrong.
Did you see my twenty (unanswerable) questions concerning evolution? Wanna discuss that?
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)
Actually, "Face to face" Implies a friendship of familiarity. It doesn't actually mean face to face. In case you didn't notice, by only reading what the site showed you, it is focusing on God, not Moses. God saw Moses face to face, but Moses only saw the glory of God's backside... and was blind for three days.
Jacob didn't see God, either. He saw a manifestation of God, but not in His Divinity.
Nobody can see God. Except well, seeing Jesus.
Ah, but don't you say that the Bible should be taken literally? So wouldn't face to face mean exactly that, face to face?
Even so, it says Moses saw God's backside, is His backside not part of Him? So wouldn't that count as seeing God, which is what both John and Exodus said was impossible?
Not if that's not what it means.
Whoops. He saw the glory of God's backside. Not even God, just the remnant of Him in the sky.
This message serves as a two for one reply to both your statements.
And just when I thought we were going to start having a civilized discussion, you wreck it. How you responded to my messages was YOUR interpretation of those selected passages. Who are you to say that they should be interpreted that way? Oh, wait, you're not anyone to say that. The only one who would be able to say that would be God, and you're not Him.
Evolution? Bring it.
No. Not if that's what the original writer meant. Duh.
Yes. God's intent. Original writer. Not my interpretation.
Ok ok. 19 questions. Answer them all, and satisfactorily. Don't just say "with enough time." No. That's dumb. That's like me saying "God did it." Which I never do. (Except creation)
To the Bible statement way above. You have never met God, who are you to determine THE interpretation of the Bible? You're not anyone to do so. That's what pissesd me off about you and Amish_Allosaurus, you think you can do that and no one else can. This point alone registers both of your arguments completely invalid. Completely. You both are being hypocritical by doing that.
I'm not deciding it. Nothing says it shouldn't be taken literally. Ergo, take it literally.
Okay. If that were the case, surely it'd be simple to refute the Bible, somewhere. Surely you can find an inaccuracy. Surely.
But, still, even with many writers and over 3,000 years later, still no inaccuracies? Hmm? In a book that big!!
Woah. You're on thin ice with your argument. Tread carefully.
The stories occured so long ago (if they even did occur, no one knows for sure) that it would be impossible to prove or disprove the accuracy of them. And how are they on thin ice? Can you prove them wrong?
And you didn't respond to my last post, I will put it here again for you to see. It is a wonderful question that uses exactly your logic, but reversed a bit.
Nothing says to take it literally, so by your logic, don't take it literally.
Not even the stories. Once again, you have no case. You're resting your arguments on hypotheticals. That's why his arguments are on thin ice. You're just saying "Well it COULD not be true!" Lol. Evidence? Well what you can prove wrong, do that! Why can't you?
Yeah, I mustve missed that, sorry. Ill go back and do that.
If I told you I had two horses, and I was sixteen, and I made myself two platters of cookies, would you take that literally or metaphorically? Hmm?
The Bible is one big hypothetical as well.
If I am wrong and it isn't, please give solid evidence as to why the Bible is not hypothetical.
That would depend, but that is irrelevant because it is observable. If it were true, I could go wherever you lived or had these things and see it, neither the Bible not macro-evolution have been observed, therefore, neither can be proven or disproven. Both are beliefs, and valid beliefs at that.
"The Bible is one big hypothetical as well"
How about logic? Simple reason says that the God of creation wouldn't give an infallible book, only to take it all metaphorically, despite its continued proving right. You know that (with what you can reference) the Bible describes the ancient world perfectly? You know that?
Lol. So you'd say I'm just saying that stuff, and it isn't true?
Prove that the Bible was written by God.
Prove that the Bible is true and infallible.
Prove evolution to be one giant hoax, and creationism is the only belief possible.
I'm not creationism isn't possible, I'm saying that it is an option, just as evolution is an option.
You have no right to trash evolution until either theory has been completely proven..
Buddy. You have no case. I never said creation could be proven. You're asking for stuff I never said i could give. Also, is my theory the one "Proven?" the "scientific" one? If it's so scientific, why don't you answer those questions I posed?
"Prove that the Bible is true and infallible."
Alright. Done. Read it. It's infallible. Go for it. Check and see if it's not.
Sure. Evolution is an option. An illogical, baseless, and meaningless option. But an option nonetheless.
It's like, sure, an option for how mirrors work is that you see all the way around the world (behind you) and see your front. Well, no, that isn't true, but you may believe that.
No. I may. It has no base.
You sir, are an asshole.
Simple as that.
You just said in that last post "I never said that creationism could be proven"
If it isn't proven, why do you believe it?
Just saying "The Bible" does not prove that it is infallible.
Say God does not exist. You can't prove that He does. Now creationism is completely baseless.
I didn't answer those questions because people have told you before, there is no point in me telling you now, you won't see it. You will close your eyes and refuse to look.
I'm not gonna argue with someone whose best point is "You, sir, are an asshole."
That was your best point. Pathetic.
Well, you believe in evolution, yes? Why do you believe that? Hmm? Some things simply cannot be proven. But there are two options. Either a supernatural being created everything, or everything formed by chance. And there ain't no way I'm believing in the latter. I'm a rational man. And probabilities less than the amount of nano-seconds that've occurred since the beginning of time? No way! http://nodnc.com/modules.php?na...mp;amp;pid=291
It's utterly ridiculous to think we came about by natural processes.
No. It's infallible. Show otherwise.
No, while it's impossible to "prove" he exists, only an irrational person believes he doesn't.
Oh. Okay. Sure. Lol you're so dumb. You tried to answer them, but failed, and I showed you how I failed. But I did that with my eyes closed? Lol.
Evolution is not chance, it happens for a reason, survival of the fittest.
And eyes closed isn't literal, it's metaphorical, but you're too stupid to know that.
And evolution has not been disproved, it only has yet to be proven, you therefore have no business calling it fake.
And improbable is not impossible.
There are other ways than yours. You really should learn that.
You might make some friends.
Lol. I think it's safe to conclude this argument. Your points were crap. Your first point was irrelevant, your second degrading, and quite stupid, as I obviously knew it was metaphorical, your third just a third-grade rebuttal, your fourth absolute trash, as it is statistically impossible, as I said, I'm a rational man, and your last wasn't even a point.
Toodaloo, good luck answering my questions.
I did answer your questions, but you refuse to see (metaphorical)
You are one of the most irrational people I have ever talked to. That is a fact. Numerous evidence has been presented right in front of you, plain as day, and you refuse to see any of it, you don't even look at it. Any rational person would say that evolution is possible. You don't have to believe it, but you should at least see it for what it is, a good theory with evidence to back it up.
I know you won't agree, so I don't why I said that, but clearly you're not getting something.
"refuse to see any of it, you don't even look at it"
Uh huh. Where have I not acknowledged any of that?
You're just acting like a child. Grow up. Learn to argue.
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN WHERE HAVE YOU NOT ACKNOWLEDGED IT????? YOU DEVOTE YOUR ENITRE FUCKING LIFE TO NOT ACKNOWLEDGING IT!!!!!!!
Learn to listen, it will help you in life.
Oh, sorry. I meant legitimate evidence.
You'll get what's coming. And you have done nothing.
You're babbling nonsense. Are you incapable of constructing a single coherent thought?
Well it is to an intelligent person.
You'll get. You will get. In the future, X is coming for you.
What's coming. What is to come. X is coming for you.
You'll get what is going to come. Seriously.
The infallible book says so.
Are you a Christian?
Yeah you're going to Hell.
Am I judging? You're not a Christian. You told me. You're going to hell. That's what the Bible says.
Where did i judge?
Lol. You would know, right?
No. You're Hellbound. Have fun!
Also, where did I judge? You never answered that.
First off, one sin keeps you out of heaven. One. Have you, perhaps, stolen something, or lied, or coveted or lusted or cursed God? Once? Yeah. You have. Therefore, every single person to ever exist, excluding Jesus, would be going to Hell without Him. Everyone. The only only single only way to get into heaven is through Jesus Christ. Only way. And, as you told me, you're not a Christian, so, by the Transitive Property, you're going to Hell, alright? Where did i judge at all?
That's the eay it is. But true Christians wouldn't "sin their ass off," only to ask for forgiveness. They just wouldn't.
And yes, every non-Christian is going to hell, no matter how little they claim they've sinned.
Lol. You were never a Christian. You don't know anything about the Bible.
Where did i say you had to ask for all your sins forgiven? Hmm? Jesus wiped your record clean, you just have to accept His free gift.
And no, simply asking for forgiveness isn't enough... What are you, retarded? Read the Bible.
No. JESUS has forgiven all, by His death. Only through Him can YOU be forgiven.
God forgives all who accept Jesus, yes.
Okay then. Suit yourself.
Unfair? Lol. That's the whole point. Why He's our Savior.
I mean... is the only response.
You know absolutely nothing about the faith you claimed to have. Nothing.
Read John 14:6.
And Romans 3:23
And John 3:16
And Acts 4:12
And Romans 3:10-12
And Romans 5:8
And Romans 10:9
And Romans 10:13
And John 6:47
And Ephesians 2:8-9
And Romans 6:23
Ok? Read those before you talk to me again.
No. But it was necessary.
But by your logic, nothing says to take it literally, ergo, don't take it literally.
1. Where has macro-evolution ever been observed? What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how did the organism live before getting the vital organ, because without a vital organ, the organism is dead? If a reptiles leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve?
2. Do you realize how complex living things are? How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve?
3. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is ...
is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
5. How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man. How could that first cell reproduce? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution.
6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about
about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? How could immune systems evolve?
9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least eight moons revolve backwards?
11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there—any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren’t students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What about the other 90+ moons in the solar system?
12. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics?
13. How could stars evolve?
14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contrary evidence used by those who argue that the earth is billions of years
15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination.
16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young?
17. If Noah’s Flood never happened, then why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends similar to Genesis?
18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000–7,000 years ago.
19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites: living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, and terrestrial-like brines. Doesn’t this implicate
Doesn’t this implicate Earth as their source—and a powerful launcher, "the fountains of the great deep?
Done. Whammy. Good luck. Reasonable, factual answers. All of them. Heck, even three of them, as long as they're reasonable, factual, and consistent with both the data and the theory of evolution.
I'll give you a billion $ if she answers all of those.
Lol. Now, whenever we get into an argument, I'll just bring up those questions. :D we win.
It appears you have lost that bet. You know owe scrantoncity a billion dollars.
And I'm male, by the way.
Lol your answers are utterly pathetic. You used some variation of "with enough time" for every one.
Welcome to evolution, where time is a major factor. And had you actually read them, you would see that that was not all of my answers.
And did you read my post way at the bottom, after all the question?
1. Evolution is the process by which it occurs. Vital organs are formed when they are needed, which they aren't always needed. A change in the environment may occur, which would lead to a different need. That's when they are formed.
2. Evolution is not random chance likes it seems to be. An organism will adapt to its surroundings. Bacteria need a motor, so they develop one. It doesn't matter how complex it is, that means it takes longer time.
3. The fossil record is tainted because of the rock cycle. They have been lost. I could go into it further, but if want to know, look it up. Wikipedia is wonderful for that type of thing.
4. Whatever the first lifeform was. Everything evolved from there.
5. As for the first life form, I believe the Great Mover theory about God, that is, He started it off, and then evolution and other natural processes took over and have been running ever since.
6. The senses. They are natural. Go touch something. Your brain (if there is one) collected information. Natural process.
DNA is also not random, it is structured and logical, not random chance. That is how nature forms things, logically, not randomly. Humans are the way we are because that is what makes the most sense.
7. DNA and proteins needed for it are one in the same. A first strand was created, and then it duplicated itself because that is what DNA does.
8. They adapt by the process of evolution. You can only get chicken pox once. Why? Evolution. Your immune system adapts when you have it the first time, then recognizes it the second time and stomps it out.
9. Yes, a human takes more intelligence to make than an arrowhead. And no, hydrogen will not form a human because humans are not made of hydrogen.
10. That is the way they were started spinning and Newton's first law will keep them going until another collision occurs and they might spin differently, they might spin faster, depends on the collision.
11. An asteroid came close to earth billions of years ago and hit it and stayed in the orbit of the earth after the collision. Similar process for other moons.
12. Matter is what "stuff" is made of. It has been in existence since the beginning of time, without matter, there is nothing.
13. What do mean stars evolve? If you mean bigger, more hydrogen is used to make them. If you mean die, all the hydrogen is used up. If it's different from that, I have no idea what you mean.
14. The earth is billions of years old. Rocks have been found that have been dated 4 billion years old.
15. Because the bacteria were in the asteroid/meteorite/rock and they adapted to stay alive with whatever they had (ie the rock).
16. Yes, relative to other stars and systems, our earth and solar system are very young. But the earth has still been "alive" long enough for evolution to occur.
17. A giant flood is a standard ancient legend. They may all have first come from one legend and as it was passed by oral tradition, changed according to the culture it was being told in at that point.
And floods were common where ancient civilizations settled (they settled near water because it was necessary to survive, then floods came when the rivers overflowed), so it would make sense for there to be many legends about floods clearing the earth.
18. Ok, what of it? Doesn't that support evolution?
19. I don't know how much atomic theory you have studied, but if you have at all, you will find that it makes tons and tons of sense. There is no reason for earth to be the only planet with these substances on it. All of those substances are quite common (on earth at least), so it would make sense that they would be in abundance on other planets as well.
4: Where is the trunk? You never answered. Surely there would be a smooth transition, but what about the Pre-Cambrian explosion?
5: Well I thought you said evolution was "scientific?" How is your own theory about a deity setting it off "scientific?" Hmm? Why condemn Christianity if you believe in supernatural anyways, hypocrite?
6: You didn't answer the question at all. You just typed mumbo-jumbo. Answer the question, buddy. What natural process can gather information?
7: Wait, it formed out of thin air? Woah. That's some "scientific" beliefs you lead. You didn't answer it. You just said they are the same thing, which they aren't, if you've taken freshman biology.
8: Once again, HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW? You never answered the question. You just said "evolution." What a crappy, pitiful, absolutely pathetic answer. Pathetic.
9: But you believe that humans were formed by random processes.... Yet, now you're saying that's not possible? Lol. Hilarious. You actually...
All you have ever said is Bible, Bible, Bible.
What I am doing is intensionally similar.
There is no hard proof that macro evolution exists (Micro does and it has been proven, and I will assume you accept that). But neither is there for creationism. You can NOT prove it. The Bible is not proof, it isn't a history book.
And still nothing to the bottom comment.
Oh, so you concede that evolution isn't scientific? And that it isn't proven fact?
Oh, okay. I win.
You're now officially a fucking moron (and a normal one too) Did you not read the rest of that comment? Evidently you didn't.
Lol. Well, did I ever say creation was a proven fact? Is it being taught to school children as proven fact?
But whatever, man. You're the one incapable of supporting your (proven) theory.
Also, yeah, where have I ever just said "God did this," other than creation?
Evolution is a THEORY, not a LAW. I have presented arguments for it, and you shut them down by saying they are inadequate, even though I used logic similar to yours. That is the height of hypocracy, but you're too fucking close minded to realize that, so I'm not even going to say it.
Right. It doesn't exist at all.
No. Once again, where have I done that? Where have I said "Oh, I don't have an adequate response, so God mustve done it."
No. I have never done it. Excluding creation and miracles, pretty much everything can be explained.
Yes, evolution does exist.
You've never outright said it, but it is certaintly an undertone.
For anyone else, I would answer the questions, but you are too fucking close minded to actually read anything I would say.
And you're hypocritical-ness astounds me. You say the Bible should be taken literally, and with the face to face thing above, you say that that doesnt mean face to face. And you tell others they are no one to force their interpretations of the Bible onto others, but that is exactly what you do. Whenever anyone gives a different interpretation of the Bible, you tell them they are wrong. Now, I will give you one more chance to answer this- Who are you to say how the Bible should be interpreted? Because apparently you are the only one who can. Why is that?
Has it been observed, documented, and tested?
Oh, so I really didn't do that, but you needed a case, right?
You would? What!? Wait. You tried, and failed. And I did read it, and they were terrible.
Lol. Go back to the Greek. What is his intent? Yeah. Can you read Greek? No? Hmm.
Good one. Failure.
Has God ever been observed, documented, or tested? No? Then by your logic, He doesn't exist either.
Give me one good reason why you aren't being hypocrite when you tell others their interpretation of the Bible is wrong.
Wow. Who said God was a proven fact? Which is being taught in textbooks. Didn't you, yourself, say evolution was proven, and that I'm "ignorant" for not believing in it? Hmm?
First off, how is it hypocritical?
I never said evolution was proven (well micro evolution is, but I'm going to assume that is not what you are referring to)
You're ignorant for other reasons, like the inability to accept ideas that you don't believe in. I don't believe in creationism, but I accept it as a valid view. You believe in creationism (which is fine, it's your choice), and say evolution is wrong even though you have no proof either way.
How is it NOT hypocritical? Whenever anyone tells you their interpretation of the Bible and it differs from you, you tell them they are wrong, and that they are not Christian. Could they not do the same to you? Who are you to say what THE interpretation of the Bible is?
I thought I responded to this... Maybe not.
No? Hmm. I think you have said that before, or at least said it was scientific, and insinuated that creationism is unscientific.
No. What evidence is there for evolution? What evidence is there for old earth? What evidence shows that a dog could produce a different animal?
How is that hypocritical at all?
Evolution is a science, creationism is religious.
Many people have pointed out great evidence to evolution, you just close your eyes and pretend you don't it, so there is no point in putting it here. If you are ever going to open your eyes and see other viewpoints, you would have done it by now, so I'm just going to leave you a close-minded asshole.
And what evidence is there for creationism, I could just as easily say that you have no proof of it, so it doesn't exist.
How is it not hypocritical? Whenever anyone says an interpretation of the Bible that is different from yours, you tell them they are wrong and spread your own beliefs. You are you to say your beliefs are the only and correct ones?
What's scientific about it? I was under the impression "science" entails observation, study, and experimentation. Where, exactly, has evolution been observed, studied, documented, and experimented? Macro-evolution, that is.
Creation is religious? Lol. http://www.drdino.com/
Dr Hovind begs to differ.
No. You don't realize how fraudulent all that utter crap is. I've explained time and again why they're fake, but you can't accept that, and instead ask for evidence. Oh? Can't provide evidence for your own, "scientific" theory? Pathetic.
Lol. You can do that, but then you'll be classified as an imbecile.
Go back to grade school. Learn what hypocritical means. Apparently you have no idea. Here, I'll link, in case you lack the mental capacity to conduct a search. "Hypocritical: Professing values or virtues one does not have."
I never said I had the virtue to well, i don't even know. That isn'...
Missed the point of the second one. No, humans aren't hydrogen, but evolutionists believe that we started with hydrogen, and, over time, everything formed, including humans (out of other stuff.)
10: How would they spin backwards for the first time? Hmm?
11: Lol. Where's the crater? Where is the evidence for this?
12: What? What about the Big Bang, when there was nothing? Pretty much everyone agrees that the universe had to form. It hasn't existed forever.
13: How would stars come about? Why would they be needed? How would they form? How would there be different types?
14: Lol. No. Want a crash-course why dating methods are utter poo-poo?
15: They survived millions of years? Somethings wrong with you. Nobody thinks that. Good try.
AH. I honestly wish you had replied to me every time so you can tell where each response goes. D:
1: Wait. How would they form? Some random mutation? But you said "Evolution is not random chance likes it seems to be." How would the organs form, if A: No animal had them, and survived perfectly, B: The information wasn't there to create them, and C: There obviously wasn't a need, and if there were a need, how could they survive without it? Hmm? And what about the bad wing/ good leg? Hmm?
2: An organism will adapt to it's surrounding. But a human won't ever have a 40 foot shlong. How (not just time, remember???) would a motor evolve? How? How?
3: Coincedentallly, ALL have been lost? Lol. That's the dumbest answer I've ever heard. "Apparently, well, we don't have them, so I suppose they've been lost." "All of them?" "All of them."
I was going to reply to you every time but it put the message above my previous one, making all the answers in backwards order, which would make no sense.
It wouldn't be a random mutation, it would be a systematic mutation, one that has a purpose. Say an animal exists and is fine. But its habitat is gradually filling with water or other liquid. As the water fills the habitat, the creature must learn to swim, so it develops fins or something like it to survive. How? The creature will subconsciously sense a change in the environment, and over generations, an adaptation to the change will occur.
Evolution without time is like creationism without God.
Some transisitional fossils have been found, but many have been lost. Do some research on the rock cycle why don't ya?
And you still didn't respond to the statement right below this one.
Would you please number them like I did? Mine were out of order, sorry, so could you number them? It's hard to follow....
16: Yeah.. No. You missed the point. But whatever, this is a bad point.
17: So they all made it up? Haha. Funny. Though, once again, a minor point.
18: Well, isn't that incredibly close to the Biblical account?
19: Then why haven't we found it?
No. You didn't even adequately answer three.
Technically, animals are on the same level as humans if not ABOVE us. Who are we to say that we are better than another organism? We are humans, we are not the creator of this Earth and we did not create any of the species living on it, we have no right to judge who is above who. We are made of the same types of cells and nutrients, so we are not better. We call ourselves civilized, but are we? We kill other animals for fun. They kill each other out in the wild because they need to to survive and eat, we do it simply for our own amusement and we say,
In all honesty, I put humans below animals. I don't really see why life has value, seeing as everything will be incinerated in the end. The only way I see to calculate value is by numbers. There are far too many humans, and not nearly enough animals. Comparing a human to an ape would be like comparing iron to rhodium. That's just besides the fact that, like I said, there's too many humans. Virtually every major problem in the world could be solved with a reduction in population, but hey, every individual person is apparently more important than the species as a whole. Shit, even animals are smart enough to kill eachother off when they start running out of room.
People like to argue that no other animal does what we do in regards to creating. So fucking what? Creating doesn't benefit anything except us. Humans are worthless to the rest of the world. If all the ant ssuddenly disappeared, ecosystems around the would would collapse. Nothing else would give a shit if we vanished.
id rather slap a hoe than slap a puppy
Humans who think that its okay to kill and hurt animals who never do anything malicious are trash, and I would much rather kill one of them than an innocent animal.
Kill an innocent person or an innocent animal? I'd have to go with the animal on that one.
I wouldn't kill an innocent person or an innocent animal. But if given the option of killing a person who abuses animals or the animal itself, I'd kill the person.
the post says abuse not kill, and everyone needs to stop making stupid arguments like kill 2 fish or 1 human? or its ok to kill a human as long as they cant feel it? just because were more "advanced" doesnt mean that were "above" them. and were only advanced if your talking about technology, theyres about a billion other things to be advanced in. and yeah, id rather abuse a human than an "animal" (people here are forgetting people are animals) because at least a human can defend itsself.
i dont fully agree with this, animal abuse is disgusintg and as wrong as it gets, but i feel they are on the same levele cause they feel things as well.
Abuse is wrong. What gives a human the right to abuse another creature just because it's not human? Take dancing bears in India where there claws are ripped out and its teeth broken off with a hammer to make it easier for its handler to control (no anesthetic). And a hot poker is pushed through it's nose and out the top of it's snout so when the handler pulls on the rope it "dances" to escape the pain. Thats just fucked up and wrong, no other species tortures other animals like that for entertainment. Other animals still have emotions and feel pain. People abusing them "Because I'm a human and they're not on the same level as me" make me sick.
i agree with you(:
The bible is not literally true. The earth and everything was not created in 7 days, and many, many, many Christians who do believe that God created us all will agree with that. Animals were around long before humans.
Oh, Jesus you're getting all Christian on us.
a person is an animal
People abusing animals is not a trait of higher power it is just a act of cowardness. I still like meat though. I will slaughter a cow or a pig if I'm hungry but I will not play with my food. If I want to show dominance among species all I have to do is feed one of my own with one of the other species' carcass. Animals do not deserve to be abused and the only reason we aren't on the same level is because we are capable of abstract thought. It is a trait of ours we choose to use how we desire. Some choose to rot their mind with arrogance, those who believe they hold the right to abuse an animal, and some who aknowledge the power they have over an animal and choose to respect it and care for the animal instead.
Who said anything about the food chain?
OP isn't advocating or justifying animal abuse or neglect. He is simply saying that humans aren't the same as animals.
Well 40 people seem to think it isn't true, let alone blatantly obvious.
So it's fine to kill a person, as long as they're on anesthesia?
No, it's still not okay even if they're on anesthesia, dumbass. That's just stupid. And he was not implying that, he was implying that if at any given time you do anything to purposely cause pain to another being that can feel it, it's wrong.
I think the only reason we're on top is because of our great immune systems and intelligence (some lack that though).
I agree with this, mostly. I agree that, yes, the lives of a few animals are worth sacrificing if we need them to find the cure to a disease such as AIDS or a form of cancer, but in no way does it make it right. Abuse of ANY kind is wrong, no matter whether it's to a human or an animal. We all feel pain, and we all have emotions and animals can have severe psychological issues that result from abuse, just like humans do.
On a completely different note, the difference between humans and animals is the exact reason why I chose veterinary medicine over human medicine (for lack of a better term).
Are you saying killing animals for food and clothes is abuse?
No, I'm not. The ways some animals who are raised for food and clothing is abusive, but the single act of killing an animal for food or clothing is not abuse.
Ok, just checking.
I'm not a crazy PETA type, if that's what you're asking.
PETA, People Eating Tasty Animals
To a human, we are above all other animals, but to a lion, they probably think that they are above all other animals even humans. So technically no animal is above one another since all the humans will say they're at the top and all the lions would say they're at the top, while all the ants would say they're at the top.
Animals couldn't possibly be greater than us. We've created cities, empires, the Internet. World wide communication, television, ways to experience the world more than thought possible. And not only that, we have the power to bring that down. If someone or a group of someones grabbed tools made by humans, as in guns and explosives, we could destroy them. Now I don't know how animals think, but I'm pretty sure that the dominant one is the one that could kill all. You couldn't possible think that animals are greater than humans, as much as I love animals. I have 3 dogs, and they're awesome, but they're pets, not my masters.
Hippy fucks vote no way
Hippies are freaking awesome. Just sayin.
WOAH WATCH OUT FOR ALL THE PEOPLE SAYING THEY WILL KILL A PERSON WITH NO PROBLEM, YOU PUSSYS WOULDN'T DO IT. SAYING SOMETHING BEHIND A KEYBOARD IS EASIER THAN DOING IT.
No ways? That's sad.
I voted no way because I think all living things are on the same level. Except pedofiles. They can all die in fires.
So you'd feel just as bad applying hand sanitizer as you would killing a human?
Wow, way to take that way too literally. Excuse me, living things with the ability to think and feel. As in animals, like in your post. My apologies for being too vague.
So you would rather kill a pedo than one of those fish that sucks the poop off of the bottom of the fish bowl?
If you're asking me if I would rather kill a person who ruins the lives of innocent, defenseless children than a fish who will never harm anything, then yes. I'm sorry if you think that's terrible, but you don't have to agree.
Holy crap!?! At least you could plea insane if you ever did kill the pedo.
You can think whatever you want, but I think they're on the same level. But it could be just because I hate people.
I am pretty sure I don't give a shit.