• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Evolution Vs Creationism

Status
Not open for further replies.

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
I'm saying it's proof against you, not for me.



Did I say that everything in the Bible was proven because morality exists? No!

Even if I did say that, I didn't mean to.
Actually, nothing in the Bible is necessarily true just because parts of it exist in the real world. For all we know, it could be a fiction book which includes places and concepts from real life.


'Cause God said so. God knows everything, and loves us, so his advice must be good. That would be the reason, regardless of whether you accept it.


Please, show me where it says this. (To put it back in context)
>.<

...I...I just don't know how to refute such a meaningless, brainless statement. Such a fine example of circular logic...

God is good and loves us, so what he says must be good and true. Therefore the Bible is correct in saying God is a real thing. So we should believe in what God has to say.

>.< It's a huge logical fallacy my good sir. But it doesn't matter, because God doesn't love us:

Deuteronomy 22:5
"A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this."

Sure sounds like God is full of acceptance and loving. If he created humans who desire transgender lifestyles, then he should accept them just like every other person he made. Or did he make mistakes with regards to people who are transgender, or with Down's syndrome, or physical deformations?

Btw, god is sexist too. Deut 22:23-24 states that if a woman is raped in the city and doesn't cry for help loud enough for people to hear, she must, by law, be stoned to death by the men of the city.

Oh, and could you explain what exactly is wrong with plowing a field with a donkey and an ox at the same time? Because God's word proclaims that is a sin also.

Sounds like God is a bit of a Kim Jong Il if you ask me.
 

??????

That guy.
So this thread is basically bait for Bible-thumpers to jump in and say God created everything, so that enlightened atheists can come back with a fervent "nuh-uh". This argument is stale, people.
It is, sadly.

>.< It's a huge logical fallacy my good sir. But it doesn't matter, because God doesn't love us:
Who the hell do you think you are to define the rules of another religion?

If you actually took time to read the Bible without the intention to jump on anything that you don't like, you'd actually learn something. Make another religion if you want your God to hate.

The laws of the Old Testament were refuted by the New Testament.

Originally Posted by 1st Corinthians 10:25-33
25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."[c]

27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake[d]— 29the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.
The food laws are abolished.

Originally Posted by Galatians 3
10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[f] 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
The Old Testament Law is abolished.

Read please. The bigots who cite old Testament laws as God having hatred is dull and old.
 
Actually, nothing in the Bible is necessarily true just because parts of it exist in the real world. For all we know, it could be a fiction book which includes places and concepts from real life.

Did I say that? No!

Quit refuting things I'm not saying.

>.<

...I...I just don't know how to refute such a meaningless, brainless statement. Such a fine example of circular logic...

God is good and loves us, so what he says must be good and true. Therefore the Bible is correct in saying God is a real thing. So we should believe in what God has to say.

Circular reasoning is a valid argument, just not a very helpful one.

FYI:
All of your beliefs stand on one thing, I don't know what it is, but they do. Whatever it is, must use circular reasoning by invoking itself to be proven. Unless, of course, it invokes something else that is based on it, which would still be circular. Otherwise we would have a never-ending chain of ideas, which is impossible. So, every argument has circular reasoning somewhere.

If you still don't get it, take logic and prove it without invoking logic or anything based on it. Get it now?

>.< It's a huge logical fallacy my good sir. But it doesn't matter, because God doesn't love us:

Deuteronomy 22:5
"A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this."

I suppose then, this would either be part of the hard-wired morality, a function of society, or more likely a combination.

Sure sounds like God is full of acceptance and loving. If he created humans who desire transgender lifestyles, then he should accept them just like every other person he made. Or did he make mistakes with regards to people who are transgender, or with Down's syndrome, or physical deformations?

God has made no mistakes, that doesn't mean his creation hasn't. Perhaps you know that when Adam disobeyed God, the entire world changed and has been going downhill since. Your statement is akin to looking at a beat up chevy, and deciding never to buy a chevy because they make horrible cars. When in reality it was the person in charge of the chevy that messed it up, not the person who made it.

Btw, god is sexist too. Deut 22:23-24 states that if a woman is raped in the city and doesn't cry for help loud enough for people to hear, she must, by law, be stoned to death by the men of the city.

It actually says they both should be stoned. And it says only if the girl was betrothed, and I'm not even sure if it means rape, it might mean adultery.

Oh, and could you explain what exactly is wrong with plowing a field with a donkey and an ox at the same time? Because God's word proclaims that is a sin also.

Show me that verse too please.

Sounds like God is a bit of a Kim Jong Il if you ask me.

Trust me, he isn't.
 

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
I'm going to finish out here. They can coexists like I've said 3 times now, but I don't believe they do, that's why I've been arguing. We keep getting more ignorant people who haven't read the other pages entering in an reiterating the same points, such as 'creation has no evidence, it's just saying god did it'. For those that think God can't exist, check out my blog, I've debunked that, for others, well if you wanna discuss with me email me, that's on my blog too. Creation has evidence as well, and evolution has too many holes for me to believe it. See ya.

While I won’t deny the possible existence of a higher being I will deny any existence of the God you claim there to be. I've checked out your blog and its really no different than the crap you post here so.... yea.

What evidence does creationism actually have the makes it more believable for you?


The Old Testament Law is abolished.

See this is very odd. Odd because in the Old Testament is suppose to the Direct word of “God” through others like Moses and other prophets. His law is said in one of the books of the Old Testament to be “Perfect.” So how can the New Testament really abolish the perfect laws set forth by “God” himself in the New Testament? Very interesting….
 

I like Pikachu

Well-Known Member
Evolution forever! God doesn't exist! And haven't you ever heard of fossils, autopickus, or cave men? Evolution forever!
 

Tyrant Tar

Well-Known Member
See this is very odd. Odd because in the Old Testament is suppose to the Direct word of “God” through others like Moses and other prophets. His law is said in one of the books of the Old Testament to be “Perfect.” So how can the New Testament really abolish the perfect laws set forth by “God” himself in the New Testament? Very interesting….

I think it may have been that the Hebrews simply took the laws to such ridiculous extremes that God had to come down personally and set them straight (which they didn't like and 'killed' Him for it).
 

godudette

/me cresselias
Okay. Stop all the confusion about the Old and New Testaments.

The Old Testament was written for the Hebrew people. The Israelites. The covenanted people that God chose. The Old Testament laws, thus, apply to the Hebrews. Many of these laws were to correct problems that the people had, and the insane food laws that we laugh at actually provided them with a safer diet than if they had eaten such foods.

The New Testament, however, applies to the church. In Jesus' ministry, he spoke of the authenticity of the Old Testament, but abolished it's extreme laws. He re-affirmed the Ten Commandments and moral codes that today's Christians practice (or, I should rather say 'should,' what with all the hypocrites in society these days).

The Old Testament people lived in a way to achieve their salvation by sacrifice. WHen they committed a sin or did something opposed to God's law, they had to perform one of five different kinds of sacrifice according to what they had done. At the turn of the century, when Jesus died on the cross, He became the ultimate sacrifice so that people no longer had to follow the codes of conduct for sacrifice. Thus, a new covenant was created between God and those who believed in Him, rather than the BC covenant that was between God and those who He chose to be His.

Anyone taking such ridiculous laws out of the Old Testament and attempting to use them to refute Christianity and it's way of life is practicing eisegesis, which is not the way God intended the Scriptures to be read.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Well, that still doesn't explain God's behavior in the Old Testament.
 

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
I think it may have been that the Hebrews simply took the laws to such ridiculous extremes that God had to come down personally and set them straight (which they didn't like and 'killed' Him for it).

I can easily accept this because at the same time that means the old and new testament are equally creditable.


Edit:

Okay. Stop all the confusion about the Old and New Testaments.

The Old Testament was written for the Hebrew people. The Israelites. The covenanted people that God chose. The Old Testament laws, thus, apply to the Hebrews. Many of these laws were to correct problems that the people had, and the insane food laws that we laugh at actually provided them with a safer diet than if they had eaten such foods.

The New Testament, however, applies to the church. In Jesus' ministry, he spoke of the authenticity of the Old Testament, but abolished it's extreme laws. He re-affirmed the Ten Commandments and moral codes that today's Christians practice (or, I should rather say 'should,' what with all the hypocrites in society these days).

The Old Testament people lived in a way to achieve their salvation by sacrifice. WHen they committed a sin or did something opposed to God's law, they had to perform one of five different kinds of sacrifice according to what they had done. At the turn of the century, when Jesus died on the cross, He became the ultimate sacrifice so that people no longer had to follow the codes of conduct for sacrifice. Thus, a new covenant was created between God and those who believed in Him, rather than the BC covenant that was between God and those who He chose to be His.

Anyone taking such ridiculous laws out of the Old Testament and attempting to use them to refute Christianity and it's way of life is practicing eisegesis, which is not the way God intended the Scriptures to be read.

There is no confusion. You have refuted nothing.
 
Last edited:

godudette

/me cresselias
Deuteronomy 22:5
"A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this."

Do you remember all the curses in the Old Testament? Plagues of Egypt? God loves His children- in the OT, the people of Israel, His chosen, covenanted people. If people chose not to follow His laws, it wasnt acceptable and they were cursed. If they followed His ways, then they were blessed. Those who did not apply by His law were not accepted in society and were thus exiled from the current dwelling place of the Israelites.

There is no confusion. You have refuted nothing.
Actually, mister, I've refuted taking the Bible out of context. Trying to re-clarify the difference between the Old and New Testaments. And the Bible seems to play a maor role in the development of this debate, as it seems to be a major source that people keep citing. *rolls eyes*
 

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
Actually, mister, I've refuted taking the Bible out of context. Trying to re-clarify the difference between the Old and New Testaments. And the Bible seems to play a maor role in the development of this debate, as it seems to be a major source that people keep citing. *rolls eyes*

You really did nothing but reinforce my point.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
Circular reasoning is a valid argument, just not a very helpful one.

FYI:
All of your beliefs stand on one thing, I don't know what it is, but they do. Whatever it is, must use circular reasoning by invoking itself to be proven. Unless, of course, it invokes something else that is based on it, which would still be circular. Otherwise we would have a never-ending chain of ideas, which is impossible. So, every argument has circular reasoning somewhere.
No.

You are assuming that God exists by saying his word in the Bible is good and pure and whatnot. However, the only proof we have that God exists is his word in the Bible (which you are assuming to be good and true), therefore, you cannot prove god exists just because it says so in the Bible.

What you are essentially saying is that anything which claims to be true is true simply because it says so.

If you found a hessian sack on the street with a sign saying 'contains real gold, honest', by your logic you would believe 100% that everything inside the bag was true pure gold, even if all you found was a piece of paper saying 'this is real gold'.


I suppose then, this would either be part of the hard-wired morality, a function of society, or more likely a combination.
Stop bullshi*ting; elaborate more if you know what you're talking about. I can put girl's clothes on any time, does that make me a different person? No, I haven't done anything to anyone else, but I'm still offending poor old God's conservative morals.

The fact that people are more open about transvestism now shows how our social moral code is in fact evolutionary - I agree there was a time that it was frowned upon but it is in the past now, along with views of male superiority and white supremacy.

God has made no mistakes, that doesn't mean his creation hasn't. Perhaps you know that when Adam disobeyed God, the entire world changed and has been going downhill since. Your statement is akin to looking at a beat up chevy, and deciding never to buy a chevy because they make horrible cars. When in reality it was the person in charge of the chevy that messed it up, not the person who made it.
What's your point? Every person is a gift from God. If he biologically wires a person to want to dress contrary to their physical gender then he has either made a mistake, or is hypocritical when he chooses not to love them based on their natural impulses.

It actually says they both should be stoned. And it says only if the girl was betrothed, and I'm not even sure if it means rape, it might mean adultery.
Yes, they should both be stoned. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying God's word says that a woman who is raped should be punished if she doesn't cry for help loud enough.

Sounds fair to me :rolleyes:

Show me that verse too please.
Sure.

Deut 22:10
"Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together."


Trust me, he isn't.
Why should I trust you? How much more do you know than I do? I've got the same book of God's personal words as anyone on Earth does.

Actually, mister, I've refuted taking the Bible out of context.
It's not out of context. I showed how the morals of the Bible were hypocritical, or intolerant, or just useless in some way, to prove that morals weren't created by God, but evolve over time, which is naturally backed up by the way that equality between genders and races has developed over the centuries.
 
Last edited:
The one line "I believe evolution 'cause I said so" arguments are arbitrary.

No.

You are assuming that God exists by saying his word in the Bible is good and pure and whatnot. However, the only proof we have that God exists is his word in the Bible (which you are assuming to be good and true), therefore, you cannot prove god exists just because it says so in the Bible.

What you are essentially saying is that anything which claims to be true is true simply because it says so.

If you found a hessian sack on the street with a sign saying 'contains real gold, honest', by your logic you would believe 100% that everything inside the bag was true pure gold, even if all you found was a piece of paper saying 'this is real gold'.

No, actually a circular argument is either accepted or rejected based on prior knowledge.

How about this:
If you can prove that logic is relevant without using logic(or anything based on logic) I'll allow you to say that all circular arguments are bad. Essentially, prove logic without circular reasoning or arbitrariness.

Stop bullshi*ting; elaborate more if you know what you're talking about. I can put girl's clothes on any time, does that make me a different person? No, I haven't done anything to anyone else, but I'm still offending poor old God's conservative morals.

The fact that people are more open about transvestism now shows how our social moral code is in fact evolutionary - I agree there was a time that it was frowned upon but it is in the past now, along with views of male superiority and white supremacy.

White supremacy was an evolutionary thing based on the "fact" that whites were "more evolved" than people with other colored skin.

The only thing you've done to anyone else is scare them. XD But seriously, what you're doing is showing god that you don't like the way he made you. You're showing that you think He made you the wrong gender. That's basically insulting God.

What's your point? Every person is a gift from God. If he biologically wires a person to want to dress contrary to their physical gender then he has either made a mistake, or is hypocritical when he chooses not to love them based on their natural impulses.

The "gay gene" misconception as I'm going to call it, is the misconception that genes determine your "sexual preference" and similar things. But in reality this is the person's own choice. The reason some people have this and similar problems, and other people don't is based on their exposure to it and whether they are going to be tempted in that way. Everyone faces different temptations, that's life.

Yes, they should both be stoned. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying God's word says that a woman who is raped should be punished if she doesn't cry for help loud enough.

Sounds fair to me :rolleyes:

It makes sense, if you don't scream loud enough it's almost like you wanted that to happen. What would be unfair would be if the girl was mute and they still stoned her.

Sure.

Deut 22:10
"Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together."

I did a little research on this. I found out that one was clean and one was unclean, and you're not supposed to touch unclean things. But the reason it was put this way was also an analogy for a believer marrying a non-believer. (Much later in the Bible) A believer marrying a non-believer is called being unequally yoked. Which, btw, is not a sin if two unbelievers got married and then one gets saved.

Why should I trust you? How much more do you know than I do? I've got the same book of God's personal words as anyone on Earth does.

I didn't have anything to refute per se, so I disagreed with your statement about the oriental guy.
 

Lugia1703

Dragon lover
to be honest: i have no idea if God exists or not. im a agnost in that extent, but what i do know is that there are quite a few people who abuse their religion to get away with horrible crimes, saying it was God's will :/. it makes sense then that people are gona hate religion and become atheists. thus, even though i'll never say that God does or doesn't exist because i don't know and have no proof he doesn't or does, i definately would never go to a church because i DO doubt people acting like they know it all while all they come with are books and stories which were told to them as children or at school.
 

godudette

/me cresselias
You really did nothing but reinforce my point.

I actually recall establishing the difference between the two Testaments. I never attacked the authenticity or perfection of either one.

Thus, NOT supporting your point that a perfect law can not be abolished. The OT doesn't apply to today's Christians. As I've stated, mulitple times, it applied to the Hebrew people. Just because it isn't practiced today does not mean that it isn't perfect anymore.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
The one line "I believe evolution 'cause I said so" arguments are arbitrary.
So are the 'God is real because his word is in the Bible and he loves us' lines.

Unlike the Bible, the theory of evolution can be backed up by valid scientific observations. Creationists have nothing but faith.


No, actually a circular argument is either accepted or rejected based on prior knowledge.

How about this:
If you can prove that logic is relevant without using logic(or anything based on logic) I'll allow you to say that all circular arguments are bad. Essentially, prove logic without circular reasoning or arbitrariness.
Here's your logic.

If A exists, then B is true. If B is true then A must exist. Therefore, because B exists, A is true.

God is A, the Bible is B. But you can clearly see your conclusion is totally illogical. Its like if I say "if Botswana has won a World Cup, then what I've written on this paper is true."

Your logic implies that because I have written on the piece of paper, Botswana has most definitely won the World Cup. In fact there is actually absolutely no correlation between the existence of a Bible and the existence of God.

White supremacy was an evolutionary thing based on the "fact" that whites were "more evolved" than people with other colored skin.
Whoaaaa, that's a very risky thing to say. Did you mean to say based on the "perception"? Because white people are/were most definitely NOT more evolved than coloured people. Gosh, what are you, part of the Ku Klux Klan?

White supremecy was indeed based on that false perception - but society and its standards, like all things in the universe, evolved and has liberated into the one we see today. Unfortunately there remains people who insist upon the old ways and morals...

The only thing you've done to anyone else is scare them. XD But seriously, what you're doing is showing god that you don't like the way he made you. You're showing that you think He made you the wrong gender. That's basically insulting God.
Anyone who is scared by a transvestite is either closed-minded, immature, or both.

Besides, what kind of silly rule is that? How does God decide which clothes are for which gender? Trousers were invented for men to wear but women wear them all the time these days, are they all holding the middle finger up to God? Maybe this rule should be extended to all clothing because we are covering up the body parts that God made for us to show to the world. If we are ashamed of them then we are ashamed of God's work.

Hear that everyone? Wearing clothing is a sin, as is wearing make-up! And don't even think about painting that house of yours, do you think God made brick/concrete/wood/stone the colour it was just so you could paint it?

The "gay gene" misconception as I'm going to call it, is the misconception that genes determine your "sexual preference" and similar things. But in reality this is the person's own choice. The reason some people have this and similar problems, and other people don't is based on their exposure to it and whether they are going to be tempted in that way. Everyone faces different temptations, that's life.
Now this is just absurd. Are you trolling or something? There is no choice involved in whether or not you're straight or gay.

I for one know of a young boy in the neighbourhood, and he is showing very homosexual tendencies, that is, he plays only with dolls, likes to dress in pink and claims he wants to be a girl. He grew up in the same household, and ate the same food, had access to the same toys, and interacted with the same people as his straight siblings. And of course, he is too young to know what sexual attraction is, or even what homosexuality is. So how could he have made that choice?

Besides, if being gay is a choice then straight people should be able to choose their orientation any time they want. So go on, prove me wrong. For the next 2 hours, I want you to be physically, mentally and sexually attracted to the same sex. Think about them the same way as you would the opposite gender now. And be sure not to have a glimmer of a thought about a girl (presuming you are male) until the 2 hours are up. If you do think about girls, think of them as you do males now.

If you can do that, then I will concede homosexuality is solely a person's choice.

It makes sense, if you don't scream loud enough it's almost like you wanted that to happen. What would be unfair would be if the girl was mute and they still stoned her.
=| Are you for real?

You're essentially saying that a girl who is raped but doesn't get heard over the sound of city life must be punished. What if no one is around, or there is loud traffic? Should we pelt her face with rocks until she dies for her sin anyway?

I've never heard something so outrageous in my life...

I did a little research on this. I found out that one was clean and one was unclean, and you're not supposed to touch unclean things. But the reason it was put this way was also an analogy for a believer marrying a non-believer. (Much later in the Bible) A believer marrying a non-believer is called being unequally yoked. Which, btw, is not a sin if two unbelievers got married and then one gets saved.
In what way is a donkey any more or less clean than an ox? =S
And there was no analogy, the verse quite literally states don't yoke an ox and a donkey together.

I didn't have anything to refute per se, so I disagreed with your statement about the oriental guy.
So? You said, trust me, God isn't like Kim Jong Il, even though there are plentiful amounts of rubbish rules in the Old Testament that he demanded from his playthings. So I challenged your faith in God. What makes you so sure God isn't a dictator? North Koreans (as opposed to 'oriental people' -_-') are free to do whatever they want, as long as it's within the rules that ol' Kimmy sets for them. And if he decides they've broken the rules, he punishes them. He also forces their schools to teach the children about his greatness.

He's scarily not unlike God. Besides, you have the same evidence as anyone that God is real and loves us, how are you so sure?

Off topic: What kind of sick person makes things just so that they will love you back anyway? God should get a girlfriend...
 
Last edited:

J.T.

ಠ_ಠ
White supremacy was an evolutionary thing based on the "fact" that whites were "more evolved" than people with other colored skin.

That's not fact. It's a belief.

The only thing you've done to anyone else is scare them. XD

Hey, I'm all for scaring close-minded people once in a while. Maybe it'll knock some sense into them, make them realize "wait, this isn't that bad, I mean my eyes aren't melting or anything..."

But seriously, what you're doing is showing god that you don't like the way he made you. You're showing that you think He made you the wrong gender. That's basically insulting God.

If God was perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, wouldn't He have made the transgendered person the gender He knew they'd be more comfortable as? Because trapping a person in a body they're uncomfortable with and punishing them for trying to make it better kinda sounds like a jackass move.

The "gay gene" misconception as I'm going to call it, is the misconception that genes determine your "sexual preference" and similar things. But in reality this is the person's own choice. The reason some people have this and similar problems, and other people don't is based on their exposure to it and whether they are going to be tempted in that way. Everyone faces different temptations, that's life.

Hurr hurr yes people totally choose to be trapped in a body they don't like.

It makes sense, if you don't scream loud enough it's almost like you wanted that to happen. What would be unfair would be if the girl was mute and they still stoned her.

Congratulations, you have found one of my berserk buttons.

Are you ****ing kidding me? If the guy is holding a gun to her head and saying "scream and you're dead", or someone just doesn't hear her, for example because the city's too loud or they're too far away for anyone to hear, are you saying we should just go "tough ****" and kill her for something that came about through no fault of her own? Disgusting. ****ing disgusting.

And I don't have time to post anything else, besides, chuboy covered it.
 

ChedWick

Well-Known Member
I actually recall establishing the difference between the two Testaments. I never attacked the authenticity or perfection of either one.

Thus, NOT supporting your point that a perfect law can not be abolished. The OT doesn't apply to today's Christians. As I've stated, mulitple times, it applied to the Hebrew people. Just because it isn't practiced today does not mean that it isn't perfect anymore.

It would seem you a beyond rational though. The law can not be perfect if it does not apply to all. But again you are missing the point. Either one or the other or both is/are a lie. I'm inclined to think the latter.




It makes sense, if you don't scream loud enough it's almost like you wanted that to happen. What would be unfair would be if the girl was mute and they still stoned her.

Congratulations you are probably in the top 100 worst people in the world (with however many billion people we have this figure says a lot about you) as well as the dumbest. Though the two do go hand in hand.
 
Last edited:

PokeProphet

Still believing!
Forgive the intrusion, but I'm curious to see how much the people on this forum actually know about the theory of evolution. Just to see whether this debate has a chance of actually going anywhere.

Basically, I have thought of ten basic statements regarding the theory of evolution and Charles Darwin. They're listed below. They can be answered by simply stating that the statement made is 'true' or 'false'. You don't have to post your answers, or tell how many you answered correctly. So try to be honest with yourself.

Here goes:

1. The theory of evolution was first formulated by Charles Darwin.

2. According to the ToE, humans descended from the apes.

3. Darwin was an atheist, who repented on his deathbed and became a Christian just before he died.

4. According to the ToE, people are the final result of evolution.

5. Darwin described the evolutionary line of mankind in his groundbreaking book, 'The Origin of Species'.

6. Darwin himself has admitted that evolution and natural selection could never explain the forming of organs as complex as the human eye, since an eye would not work if one of its parts was taken.

7. Gaps in the fossil record (missing transitionary fossils) undermine the ToE to this day.

8. 'Survival of the fittest' is a term Darwin thought of to describe the basic force behind natural selection and the ToE.

9. The ToE states that evolution, and in fact the way mankind came into existence, is purely based on chance.

10. The fact that the theory of Evolution is still called a theory means that there is still doubt and that it is not proven, else it would probably be called the law of evolution.

There. That wasn't so bad, now wasn't it?

And now for the answers. I don't have time to elaborate on them right now, but I will give you enough information to see how well you did on this test;
Every statement made above is, in fact, false. That's right, not a single statement is true.
How did you do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top