Other A serious question to atheists...

[Ironrot]

If you are calling for belief, I would say that I was once an atheist. I didn't understand religion, the concept of god(s) or his/their existence(s), or his/their power upon the earth. Now, I simply have stopped caring about the concept of religion. Not for fear of big G, or in spite of a holy divinity, but for the sway the word of a being more powerful than man has on people. It's destructive force, and ability to sway people on a whim because their god demands, or spoke directly with a priest or prophet of some sort.

No, I don't hate religion. I only find it intriguing. It was created to calm people, mold them into better human beings. 10 Commandments? Notice how they are held up to a moral standard that most people stand by, even I follow them, for it is simply what is 'right.' Now, religions such as Christianity and all of its sects are commercialized, monopolized, by the church. It's somewhat disgusting, to see such good things go awry. Look at the Westboro Chruch! A disgusting perversion of beliefs to uphold their own agenda.

Now for myself, no, I don't believe that there is a god out there. There might be. Who knows? Until the time I see floating heads in the sky controlling the weather and shouting "SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT", I think I am fine being 'godless' for now, leaving good will and luck to beings such as Karma, and a being of judgement, who merely watches from afar, giving and taking according to what one has exerted unto the world.

That's as deep into the pool as i'm going man, i'm not going past my eyeballs.

I don't put too much stock in the idea that religion has a negative impact. People use it for that, but more often you will see the poor behaviours tired to geographical location rather than a theology.

Often religion is an oversimplification or an excuse, not a cause

 

[Hall Kervean]

K, so.

1. Slavery is slavery, no matter how you spin it. The commodification of living human beings is utterly repulsive and god gave it a thumbs up. Historical interpretations of the text for over 1000 years justified what we think of as slavery.
2. Its a nice attempt at explanation, but again - Jesus refuses service to someone because they're not an Israelite, then changes his mind once confronted about it by his peers. Its the ancient equivalent of "I'm not going to serve you because you're _____." the other cashier gives the guy a funny look, and then he takes their order.
3. Still advocates for murdering children. I, for one, am not fond of the idea of being divinely mandated to put a bullet through a future child's head just because he/she looked at me funny, or else I go to hell.
4. The misogyny stems from the New Testament House Code, which, though its historical context is obvious, is still coming from a pair of Apostles after they've witnessed the alleged acts of god.

Punishment of innocents: Give Exodus a read. For the decision of the Pharaoh to enslave the Hebrews (who.. God put there in the first place), God sends a variety of plagues that mostly inflict suffering on random Egyptians (who, judging by the way the enslavement of the Hebrews is described, mostly didn't have anything to do with them) and mostly doesn't actually harm the Pharaoh. Also, "God hardened the Pharaoh's heart" repeatedly despite his willingness to let the Hebrews go, then punished them because he took away their autonomy. Goes on to say things roughly like "I wanna be damn sure the Egyptians know I'm the best god."

Ethnic Cleansing: Read the whole thing with the Amalekites. God demands the Israelite's commit genocide, rather than just conquest, against a foe who was probably acting defensively when they saw a massive army of people crossing through their land. Relying on a cultural defense here justifies the actions of the Amalekites, considering that the Hebrews were almost certainly plundering their land whilst they traveled through it. "God warned them" just makes it religious cleansing, the modern day equivalent of rounding up every Muslim on Earth and shooting them because we believe different things. What sort of God, with apparently documented miracles, can't convince someone to follow him? He's used a number of prophets, so clearly he's got no problem with direct intervention. Maybe he just didn't think some kinds of people were worth keeping alive?

"Well, you see, kidnapping women and forcing them to marry you is acceptable. I mean, look, its fine to have my family slaughtered around me, be set upon by an army renowned for its pillaging and raping, and then tied up, carried dozens if not hundreds of miles away from people who I know or even speak my language, and then forced to remain in the household of the guy who did this all to me until I die. After all, my father married me off without asking me first, but at least the guy he chose spoke my language, had the same customs, and had a vested interest in my well-being."

"Killing prisoners is okay if they're doing what we do to other people."


Ultimately what this all comes down to is that people did some morally horrific things and used a deity to justify it. Slavery (even Slavery Lite TM) is never okay. Not today, not 2000 years ago, not 5000 years ago. Kidnapping women and forcing them to marry you at sword point is not okay. Punishing entire civilizations for the actions of their military class who do what they want, with no respect for the wishes of their common populace, is similarly not okay. Saying kids should die because they don't like their parents is not okay. Turning women, roughly 50% of the human population, into household property, is not okay.

If we followed the suggested rules put forth in the Bible, it would most likely have been within the law to commit utter genocide against Germans for World War 2, for Americans to wage retributive war against England and purge it to the last man, woman, child, or animal after destroying every ounce of their property, for Americans to ship hundreds of Vietnamese woman home to put in non-consensual marriages, and so forth. I think we can agree that none of these things are good ideas.

Just because these things were cultural practices that we don't do anymore does not mean its okay that god said they were okay at some point. If you want to have an all-benevolent, all-powerful creator, be my guest. Just make sure they're within five thousand miles of those standards.

1.
Alfred is a slave to Bruce Wayne is what I'm hearing from you. Indentured servitude was an alternative to crushing debt. If you took out a 500K loan and couldn't pay it back, you could instead work at the bank for up to 7 years with your food and bedding provided.

2.
Ty! I'm sure others could give better explanations.

3.
It's more like when the child slaps a parent and then runs away from home. But it's still wrong.

4.
They were raised in a culture where it was OK. If you saw a divine being perform miracles, but he hadn't taught you yet that, say, playing video games was literally from the devil, would you agree that it was justified that, before knowing you played video games?

So. It was to punish the Egyptians for worshipping their false gods. The pharaoh and his people had been worshipping, say, the god of the Nile. So when God turned the Nile into blood, it was to punish them for worshipping the god of the Nile, specifically. And the "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" passage came after passages about how "pharaoh hardened his heart." There was a point where God was like "Ok, you want to harden your heart and not let the Israelites leave? Alright. I'll give you what you want." "And God hardened pharaoh's heart."

Amalekites had been warned 400 years to stop murdering, raping, pillaging, etc. They didn't, so God sent in the Israelites. Basically, they had their shot. Even the Israelites, when screwing up, were forced out of the land (Babylon, Assyria). He didn't play favorites.

They assigned the miracles he did to the various gods. He gave them a good harvest, well, praise Steve the harvest-god!
That's not his thought process. It's just that they were too stubborn to listen for 400 years, so at that point they weren't suddenly going to give teddy bears to orphan children or anything.

*pillaging. Again, there was no raping. That's not allowed.

Indeed. That's what literally every culture did back in the day.
But even if they didn't, it was that or kill them all. It's preferable. Besides, obviously they didn't live too happily, since there weren't any reports of enormous female uprisings throughout the land as they rose up as one to defeat their conquerors. They didn't even try. Logic would say they ay have even been better off with their conquerors.
Think of it as kind of like being adopted from an abusive family, but one step up.

"Killing rapists, murderers, and assassins is not ok. Just give them a slap on the wrist and let them go free."

Ultimately, what it comes down to is some people not just rejected God, but began doing vile and wicked things. Picture polygamy, but with your mom and a dog. That's what's going down in the land of Amalek.


Slavery (even Slavery Lite TM) is never okay.
-Alternative way of debt-paying. You could let interest rise, be stuck in poverty forever, or work it off a few years with room and board to boot.

Kidnapping women and forcing them to marry you at sword point is not okay.
-It's not kidnapping if they don't have a home!
Jk, sorry.
Think of it more like sparing them from wicked homes and families.

Punishing entire civilizations for the actions of their military class who do what they want, with no respect for the wishes of their common populace, is similarly not okay.
-Oye. Truth post right here.
Common people still worshipped Steve the crop god. And God is a jealous God. They also did low stuff, like theft, lying, murder, etc.

Saying kids should die because they don't like their parents is not okay.
Never said that. Be respectful. Do what they say and be respectful about it; keep it to yourself. Anger itself is not a sin, but anger can cause sin.


Turning women, roughly 50% of the human population, into household property, is not okay.
-Oye. Truth post right here.
They were never furniture, nor lampposts, nor sheep guarded by shepherds, nor currency to be exchanged.

If we followed the suggested rules put forth in the Bible,
Romans 6:15, Christians are not under the law. Now, are there parts that are obviously smart to follow? Like don't murder? No duh! But we don't have to follow the "do not wear a piece of clothing made from more than two materials" law.


it would most likely have been within the law to commit utter genocide against Germans for World War 2,
-It would have. Most of them supported or at least did not do anything against the genocide. God would have spared the ones who helped, but other than that, since they cursed God's people, God would curse them, as he promised.
All the same, they had 15 years, not 400.
for Americans to wage retributive war against England and purge it to the last man, woman, child, or animal after destroying every ounce of their property,
-What!? No! What kind of monster would think that!? They didn't attempt genocide; that's crazy!
Not that we almost didn't already do nearly the same thing, without Biblical influence, in the Spanish-American war *whistles*
for Americans to ship hundreds of Vietnamese woman home to put in non-consensual marriages,
-Completely different. We were there to support the South Vietnamese government, not to defeat a nation. Since were mostly operating in South 'nam anyways, we would be shipping allied females home. That wouldn't have made us much of a shining beacon, now would it?


Just because these things were cultural practices that we don't do anymore does not mean its okay that God said they were okay at some point.
-Sometimes it happened without his approval. Obedience is better than sacrifice passage.
If you want to have an all-benevolent, all-powerful creator, be my guest.
-He's not. Never said he was. He's just and loving, but he's not all-benevolent. You get what you deserve in the end, unless you input a little video game cheat code called "Jesus," which lets you bypass the sucky stuff and enter heaven.

Anything else you're confused on?

 

[Vudukudu]

1.
Alfred is a slave to Bruce Wayne is what I'm hearing from you. Indentured servitude was an alternative to crushing debt. If you took out a 500K loan and couldn't pay it back, you could instead work at the bank for up to 7 years with your food and bedding provided.

2.
Ty! I'm sure others could give better explanations.

3.
It's more like when the child slaps a parent and then runs away from home. But it's still wrong.

4.
They were raised in a culture where it was OK. If you saw a divine being perform miracles, but he hadn't taught you yet that, say, playing video games was literally from the devil, would you agree that it was justified that, before knowing you played video games?

So. It was to punish the Egyptians for worshipping their false gods. The pharaoh and his people had been worshipping, say, the god of the Nile. So when God turned the Nile into blood, it was to punish them for worshipping the god of the Nile, specifically. And the "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" passage came after passages about how "pharaoh hardened his heart." There was a point where God was like "Ok, you want to harden your heart and not let the Israelites leave? Alright. I'll give you what you want." "And God hardened pharaoh's heart."

Amalekites had been warned 400 years to stop murdering, raping, pillaging, etc. They didn't, so God sent in the Israelites. Basically, they had their shot. Even the Israelites, when screwing up, were forced out of the land (Babylon, Assyria). He didn't play favorites.

They assigned the miracles he did to the various gods. He gave them a good harvest, well, praise Steve the harvest-god!
That's not his thought process. It's just that they were too stubborn to listen for 400 years, so at that point they weren't suddenly going to give teddy bears to orphan children or anything.

*pillaging. Again, there was no raping. That's not allowed.

Indeed. That's what literally every culture did back in the day.
But even if they didn't, it was that or kill them all. It's preferable. Besides, obviously they didn't live too happily, since there weren't any reports of enormous female uprisings throughout the land as they rose up as one to defeat their conquerors. They didn't even try. Logic would say they ay have even been better off with their conquerors.
Think of it as kind of like being adopted from an abusive family, but one step up.

"Killing rapists, murderers, and assassins is not ok. Just give them a slap on the wrist and let them go free."

Ultimately, what it comes down to is some people not just rejected God, but began doing vile and wicked things. Picture polygamy, but with your mom and a dog. That's what's going down in the land of Amalek.


Slavery (even Slavery Lite TM) is never okay.
-Alternative way of debt-paying. You could let interest rise, be stuck in poverty forever, or work it off a few years with room and board to boot.

Kidnapping women and forcing them to marry you at sword point is not okay.
-It's not kidnapping if they don't have a home!
Jk, sorry.
Think of it more like sparing them from wicked homes and families.

Punishing entire civilizations for the actions of their military class who do what they want, with no respect for the wishes of their common populace, is similarly not okay.
-Oye. Truth post right here.
Common people still worshipped Steve the crop god. And God is a jealous God. They also did low stuff, like theft, lying, murder, etc.

Saying kids should die because they don't like their parents is not okay.
Never said that. Be respectful. Do what they say and be respectful about it; keep it to yourself. Anger itself is not a sin, but anger can cause sin.


Turning women, roughly 50% of the human population, into household property, is not okay.
-Oye. Truth post right here.
They were never furniture, nor lampposts, nor sheep guarded by shepherds, nor currency to be exchanged.

If we followed the suggested rules put forth in the Bible,
Romans 6:15, Christians are not under the law. Now, are there parts that are obviously smart to follow? Like don't murder? No duh! But we don't have to follow the "do not wear a piece of clothing made from more than two materials" law.


it would most likely have been within the law to commit utter genocide against Germans for World War 2,
-It would have. Most of them supported or at least did not do anything against the genocide. God would have spared the ones who helped, but other than that, since they cursed God's people, God would curse them, as he promised.
All the same, they had 15 years, not 400.
for Americans to wage retributive war against England and purge it to the last man, woman, child, or animal after destroying every ounce of their property,
-What!? No! What kind of monster would think that!? They didn't attempt genocide; that's crazy!
Not that we almost didn't already do nearly the same thing, without Biblical influence, in the Spanish-American war *whistles*
for Americans to ship hundreds of Vietnamese woman home to put in non-consensual marriages,
-Completely different. We were there to support the South Vietnamese government, not to defeat a nation. Since were mostly operating in South 'nam anyways, we would be shipping allied females home. That wouldn't have made us much of a shining beacon, now would it?


Just because these things were cultural practices that we don't do anymore does not mean its okay that God said they were okay at some point.
-Sometimes it happened without his approval. Obedience is better than sacrifice passage.
If you want to have an all-benevolent, all-powerful creator, be my guest.
-He's not. Never said he was. He's just and loving, but he's not all-benevolent. You get what you deserve in the end, unless you input a little video game cheat code called "Jesus," which lets you bypass the sucky stuff and enter heaven.

Anything else you're confused on?

Only by why I joined this thread in the first place, considering there's nothing else to be confused about. You can look away from the problems all you want, but it doesn't make them go away.

 

[Shugoki]

I believe in the Bible literally. I consider it not as a legend, but as a history book. I stick to the idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that there are literal angels and demons.

May I ask why? I mean, there's plenty of scientific evidence that contradicts the bible.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

Like fossil fuels. And rocks.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Ima go ahead and stop messing wit this thread; I was planning to be entertained for the next few days with logical arguments for and against the Bible with Vudukudu , but since he kind of just dismissed literally everything I said, I see no reason to stay.

 

[Ironrot]

Ima go ahead and stop messing wit this thread; I was planning to be entertained for the next few days with logical arguments for and against the Bible with Vudukudu , but since he kind of just dismissed literally everything I said, I see no reason to stay.

To a large extent everyone in this thread made up their mind before their argument. Thats what happens in a debate about religion. Theres a couple things in their response I would suggest are just historically wrong (not even commenting on the bible bits, just assertions you've made). Dunno if that is a conversation worth having.

My question for Vudukudu is why do they think that indentured servitude is illegal?

 

[Hall Kervean]

I know.
I just enjoy debating people logically.
It's just so amusing!

 

[AThiefOfSpades]

The word for "person who refuses to believe in God (or a god) because they hate him" is not atheist, but antitheist. You can add a dash in there if you like. I'm both, but mostly the latter. And I have reasons.

I don't believe in any deity for 2 reasons: 1) there's no concrete scientific evidence that he or she or whatever pronoun exists and 2) I can't fathom the argument, with or without evidence, for an omniscient all-powerful benevolent God. All evidence of God or gods-- myths, the Bible, the Quran, all the other religious books-- are full of the death and misery of humans at the hands of gods and goddesses. Are filled with over-the-top punishments for dumb shit. Are filled with smiting and war.

Without evidence, I still can't fathom the idea that a benevolent all-powerful deity wouldn't intervene often in human affairs. Some would make the argument that "they're trying to preserve free will" but then why not get involved in human lives who don't have a choice in their suffering? I'm sure most starving African children didn't CHOOSE to be starving or even to die from it. Most people don't CHOOSE to get cancer. A deity who won't- and hasn't- intervened in those situations can't be a benevolent all-powerful deity. Because there's only 2 reasons they wouldn't get involved: they don't care, so they're not benevolent, or they can't, so they're not all-powerful. I suppose it could also be both.

 

[Collinbu98]

Indentured servitude was highly unjust. I agree 100% with Vudukudu on that point. It wasn't either work for seven years to pay off a debt or live in poverty without whatever it was incurred that debt. It was either live in poverty, or live in slavery, for all of your life. That's because through the entirety of the time of indentured servitude, if the servant made a mistake, their sentence could be extended. Naturally, since it's useful to have an indentured servants, these extensions were almost guaranteed once it appeared that a servant was approaching the end of a sentence. So basically it was just a scam to get pseudo-slaves who behave exactly the same as slaves.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Collinbu98
That's the absolute maximum.
If they timed it right, they could get a couple days.
Y'see, they would enter servitude and upon the recognized seventh year, be it seven years away from the start of servitude or two days away, all debt was forgiven and they could leave. It was based on the calendar they had, and called by the priests.
IN ADDITION!
The smaller the debt, the smaller the time.
500 dollars? Maybe a couple weeks.
5K? Maybe a couple months.
50K? Maybe a couple years.
500K? Seven years.

These are just random guesstimates. I don't recall the actual time, if it was listed.

 

[Collinbu98]

The word for "person who refuses to believe in God (or a god) because they hate him" is not atheist, but antitheist. You can add a dash in there if you like. I'm both, but mostly the latter. And I have reasons.

I don't believe in any deity for 2 reasons: 1) there's no concrete scientific evidence that he or she or whatever pronoun exists and 2) I can't fathom the argument, with or without evidence, for an omniscient all-powerful benevolent God. All evidence of God or gods-- myths, the Bible, the Quran, all the other religious books-- are full of the death and misery of humans at the hands of gods and goddesses. Are filled with over-the-top punishments for dumb shit. Are filled with smiting and war.

Without evidence, I still can't fathom the idea that a benevolent all-powerful deity wouldn't intervene often in human affairs. Some would make the argument that "they're trying to preserve free will" but then why not get involved in human lives who don't have a choice in their suffering? I'm sure most starving African children didn't CHOOSE to be starving or even to die from it. Most people don't CHOOSE to get cancer. A deity who won't- and hasn't- intervened in those situations can't be a benevolent all-powerful deity. Because there's only 2 reasons they wouldn't get involved: they don't care, so they're not benevolent, or they can't, so they're not all-powerful. I suppose it could also be both.

I agree with that sentiment completely. At the very least, the Judaeo-Christian God is most certainly not benevolent. If you even glance at the Old Testament you'll see scores of examples of God showing wrath, of being envious of other gods (or false idols), and of being a very greedy god. It also goes without saying that he was a very prideful god as well, which is more debatable what with the potential "all-powerful" to contend with, but not only do I not believe him (presuming he were real) to be all-powerful, I also find that either way it doesn't justify excessive pride.

 

[Collinbu98]

Collinbu98
That's the absolute maximum.
If they timed it right, they could get a couple days.
Y'see, they would enter servitude and upon the recognized seventh year, be it seven years away from the start of servitude or two days away, all debt was forgiven and they could leave. It was based on the calendar they had, and called by the priests.
IN ADDITION!
The smaller the debt, the smaller the time.
500 dollars? Maybe a couple weeks.
5K? Maybe a couple months.
50K? Maybe a couple years.
500K? Seven years.

These are just random guesstimates. I don't recall the actual time, if it was listed.

But as I said, the time could be extended while serving for almost any reason. You dropped a glass? How about another two years. Forgot to add, "Master" to your words? How about another five. These extensions were what made indentured servitude severely unjust, and this happened in most every case.

 

[Hall Kervean]

It was set by the priests to my knowledge, so it couldn't be changed.
That may be different for different cultures, but in the Hebrew one, they couldn't do that.

 

[Collinbu98]

It was set by the priests to my knowledge, so it couldn't be changed.
That may be different for different cultures, but in the Hebrew one, they couldn't do that.

There's also the matter to deal with that at some point the Catholic church became completely corrupt, and most other branches of Christianity that were created were created for reasons of selfish kings.

 

[Hall Kervean]

But if we go by the Bible...
Which we should be...
Then the time should be proportional to the debt, they go free when it's the seventh year even if the debt isn't full repaid, and it cannot be extended.
So, Biblically, indentured servitude was alright. It was an alternative to debt.
When man stepped in, things screwed up.

 

[Collinbu98]

That's not to so say, though, that one wouldn't argue that really it doesn't count as serving for a year if they serve improperly, so maybe through this loop hole....

But fine, I'll give you that for now just because there are so many other places to talk about in the Bible that are simply ridiculous. Starting back with the corruption that swept over all of Christianity through the Dark Ages, how can you be certain how much of God's original words are still accurate, what with all these new editions that changed this and that and shortened the Bible so much during this time frame? Maybe God's real, but because of Satan spreading to even the Catholic Church, you're performing your life completely different from how Jesus Christ originally intended.

And second point to make, if God is as powerful as he is, why did he add the whole "Jesus" Claus into getting into heaven so late in the game? When I was still a Christian, I actually asked my pastor about that, and all that he was willing to tell me was that, "All those who accepted Jesus into their heart were allowed to enter the kingdom of Heaven." Isn't that a bit unfair to all the people born between the beginning and A.D.?

 

[Hall Kervean]

If they aren't serving properly, the debtor tells the priests, and either God or they intervene somehow. At least that's what I think it was. BUT they'd probably have to show evidence first. If they were actually serving properly, it'd be obvious. In those days, the servants collected logs, helped harvest, helped be a shepherd, etc. If they weren't doing that, it'd be pretty blatant.
First.
Dead Sea Scrolls.
Second.
Because prophecies were made and had to be fulfilled. I'm actually not certain myself of what the criteria in those days was to get into heaven specifically, but it might have been "be a good person." That, of course, doesn't work anymore, but it might be in those days.
I honestly don't know the answer on that one.
But your pastor wasn't the best pastor if he couldn't answer that question, or at least get back to you on it.

 

[Collinbu98]

The Dead Sea Scrolls I am not an expert on, and I don't believe I've ever read any of their contents directly, mostly due to my inability to read Hebrew or Arabic, and for those reasons, I won't question your claim that those justify accuracy, but I will note that it has been said that the Dead Sea Scrolls are very different from what actually ended up in the Bible.

Well, see, according to my pastor, if those people hadn't accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts and they weren't perfect, then they would've ended up burning in a fiery hell for all eternity. So saying I went to a poor church was an understatement, and that probably has something to do with my atheist stance at some point because the version of Christianity I was raised on was utterly incompatible with any form of science. So my apologies regarding that bias against it, but if you choose to believe that the Bible has some assumed factors about those unlucky individuals to be born before Christ, I won't question that, and I will keep that noted for the remainder of our debate, as you at least have an understandable Christian view.

The next point I would like to point out would be scientific impossibility. A: Noah's Arc. B. The earth's age C. Evolution. And yes, the Bible does point against evolution by mentioning how God created the birds before most other things. In most versions. And D. Dinosaurs?

Feel free to gauge those four in whatever approach you find feasible, I'm simply trying to get a general gauge of your current beliefs on those matters before moving forwards.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Oh ye.
Noah's ark is legit.
Actually, fun fact, turns out it was designed so it couldn't be turned over in the water, and aircraft carriers actually take some of their designs from the ark.

Earth's age is (about) 6,000 years. It makes sense, too.
The flood added tons upon tons upon tons of layers of stuff, so that accounts for the geological layers. God even let us see it happen with Mt. St. Helens and the ash there. Certainly looks like geological layers, but it was actually just ash spread in matters of minutes, not millions of years.
Things can fossilize quicklyish. I read (I don't recall where) that a man left his hat on a mountain and fifty years later, when he found it again, it had fossilized. Now, most of the time, everything decomposes quickly (relatively). But if it's covered in layers upon layers of junk that the worldwide flood forced around crushed the dinosaurs and buried them quickly, then they couldn't decompose naturally. In fact, they'd be decently protected.

Evolution doesn't work.
Macro really doesn't, and I think most people, even evolutionists, agree with that now.
Micro is special.
Adaptations are legit. When, say, a finch on an island with only hard nuts has a big beak, then it makes sense for hem to be able to eat those nuts with said large beak. When the island suddenly runs out of big nuts and all that's left are berries and sunflower seeds, they adapt to the new diet. Now, the big beak still works, but it's better to have a midsized beak. So, over a few dozen years, their bodies naturally adapt to these new circumstances. When the hard nut population rebounds, some finches may readapt to that diet again and grow big beaks, while others maintain their smaller beaks. So then someone walks up to them and announces they are descended of a common ancestor and split up via millions of years of adaption, with birds that surely had MUCH larger beaks becoming extinct after being unable to remain relevant.
Wink, nudge.
Also, I attended a very interesting discussion about how the human reproduction system pretty much disproves evolution.

Fourthly.
Dinosaurs are real.
They filmed them.
They're in a movie called "Jurassic Park," if you ever wanna take a look.

 

[Communist]

I don't believe in ONE God and I don't believe in multiple either. I like the Greek Gods though, it shows us that 'Gods' aren't as perfect as we make them out to be.

 

[Hall Kervean]

I don't believe in ONE God and I don't believe in multiple either. I like the Greek Gods though, it shows us that 'Gods' aren't as perfect as we make them out to be.

Too bad that no one worships Greek gods anymore, huh?

 

[Communist]

Too bad that no one worships Greek gods anymore, huh?

That's a shame.

 

[Hall Kervean]

That's a shame.

Cuz they ded.

 

[Communist]

Cuz they ded.

Pretty sure that out there, in this big world, someone still workships them. Probably some Greek families.