Other A serious question to atheists...

[Collinbu98]

A, they were definitely herbivores during the time of the garden, since that one sheep was the first thing in the world to die, ever. Not too hard to revert.
B, simply put, the grasses grew back quickly, but they had to subsist until then. Of course, as we all know, dinosaurs can't subsist on grass for long...

We do, I threw out the theory that everything on the ark was reverted to its Garden mentality.

I'm not an expert in geology. I'll just say that's what I've been told.
Let's go ahead and just agree to disagree on that one. I'll see about updating you if I get anymore info.
Well, yes. Atmosphere, clouds, and the oceans. Back in their day, the oceans didn't exist, or at least not as much. Their water didn't come from rain; it came from the ground in a mist. So when it was released, the oceans were created/expanded.

Oh ty! But the thing is, that and more has to ALL work at ONCE, or it doesn't work at ALL. (using vague terms) So if, say, the motor didn't exist, then they couldn't move, and the entire system would burn out. If the walls didn't exist, non-self would cause the phagocytes to eat them up in their own body. If the fluid wasn't there, everything would be screwy, and the survival rate would be much, much lower.

Good thing you're not God, though. I'm sure there's a couple people you would have killed in anger, and then your holy nature would be tainted.
Which is also why God can't be in the presence of sinners, or let them come in. Basically, they can't because otherwise, heaven itself would be tainted.

You say you'd glad take hell, but no, you wouldn't. You've probably ben burned before on a stove. Picture that, times 78, and you can't avoid it, and it will continue for all eternity, and you can draw no comfort from God, who has separated himself from you.

Archaeopteryx was a special kind of dinosaur. It's kind of not even a dinosaur, tbh. So while ye may count that, I actually don't. But I'll humor ye.
If I wanted to and had the ability, which I don't, I could probably add dino legs to myself and have them work eventually, given time. It's unsurprising that we've tried it on chickens.
AAGH SO MANY WORDS
I can't read that much in the early morning! I just woke up!
Let me judge by the title.
It's cool, to be certain, but honestly, I see God in that, too. Basically, he made it so the chicken had such a sense of balance that its legs could be forwards wand backwards and still stay upright.
When you think about it, when's the last time you've seen a chicken fall over?

Oh, easy! Not enough food! Changing climate! Their egg-laying habits couldn't survive in the new world!
To tear leaves and berries off trees. And probably eat stones, too. :/ silly dinosaurs.

So you do completely and totally agree that evolution exists, then? Because a T-rex can't subsist off of plant matter, and his teeth being like that to eat leaves is simply flat-out wrong. Find me a single existing piece of evidence that those teeth help it eat plants better and I'll change my stance. Therefore, for T-rexes to be herbivores, we therefore need to conclude that either A. Evolution is real, and for whatever reason all the fossils of the T-rexes with herbivoric teeth have just never been found for some reason, or B. God spontaneously transformed all T-rex teeth to be more carnivorous, including the already dead ones, so that they could then live to go extinct later. Find me a C., accept one of these ridiculous "possibilities", or simply give in and admit that the Bible isn't literal. I don't even need you to denounce God, because God can still be around if the Bible's just a bunch of incomprehensible metaphors. I mean, I suppose that's a logical fallacy of its own, but not one I'd be willing to fight, as you would at least be forming your own individual beliefs.

We can agree to disagree, but know that if you don't back your own side of the argument up with some kind of evidence, you're behaving entirely illogically. As for the oceans, there's the fact of the matter that there was still enough water to cover the top of the highest mountain. Mount Everest is 29,029' above sea level at its peak. Even if 10% of that goes into the atmosphere (which is entirely ridiculous as that's way too much water), and 25% seeps into the ground, (which is, again, ridiculous.) We're left 10160 feet above where the sea level is actually left. And that's not gallons of water, that's the actual distance the oceans would have to elevate for any of what you're saying to be accurate. The oceans being filled in doesn't affect that number any, because the oceans were already filled when the flood began to rise!

I'm not going to bother much further into evolution, as Ironrot seems to know exactly what he's talking about and I'm not going to make the point he already has.

So, wait, it's good I'm not God because I would try and provide people proof of my existence? And by admitting God is not omni-benevolent, the whole "tainting" thing no longer means anything, because as far as I'm aware the whole point of the "tainting" is something along the lines of bad influences make it harder to be good. But if "tainting" is a thing and you have to believe and trust in God to get into Heaven and avoid eternal punishment, isn't it still entirely evil to disappear for two thousand years without any proof of your existence to validate all this information you provide? Additionally, if God can't be around the "tainted", why does he need to make them suffer beyond comprehension? Honestly, I wouldn't wish God's version of Hell upon anyone, whether you raped and murdered little girls or whatever else. Because if God is all powerful, he could custom fit a dimension for each individual after death equal to how good they were in life, rather than this fine line of the good place and the bad place. It's pretty sick.

No, I'm certain I would happily take Hell with this kind of a God. Well, no, not happily, but I'd do it. I'm stubborn enough for it. And yes, sure, after an eternity of torture I'd obviously change my mind, but it doesn't really matter at that point because my point would've already been proven, and any amount of torture couldn't take that away from me.

Okay, so no, if you had all the technology in the world, you wouldn't be able to activate dinosaur legs in humans, because we don't have the DNA for it. Yes, with a lot of complicated stuff that wasn't necessary for the chicken, we could artificially create a version our human bodies would tolerate, but overall we don't have enough DNA there to be dinosaurs because we didn't evolve from dinosaurs. So the question becomes, why would the chickens have it if they didn't evolve from dinosaurs. Yes, it is possible to happen thanks to chance, but it is definitely not likely. And though I don't blame you for not reading the articles, you're definitely going to have to elaborate on your points about "stability of the legs", as I'm a bit lost by what you mean by that. I have a feeling that answer had at least one logical fallacy, though.

Changing climate is indeed the likely reason the dinosaurs went extinct, so at least you have that!... but no, I already told you that dinosaurs with teeth for eating "leaves and berries" were a thing, and they had completely different teeth. And I'm not even going to acknowledge the comment about T-Rex teeth being used to eat rocks.

The fact that it can structure itself and repeat itself. The fact that it looks beautiful.
The fact that we didn't actually come up with the shape, we just plugged in the numbers.
The fact that we didn't even know about it until the eighties.
We had nothing to do with it.
But there it is, a mathematical beauty that has infinite amount of exploration!

That has nothing to do with God, infinity just generally looks cool to the human mind because we can't comprehend it properly.

You could see it as secularism, I can see it as literalism.
Since both sprouted at around the same time (going off what you've said), then there isn't a definitive cause.

Also, look at the fruit, as the Bible says.
Someone who claims to be a Christian but lives out an awful life that directly contradicts the Bible in many ways, they're not really a Christian, or if they are, they're a very weak one.
Hitler claimed to be a Christian. You realize that the Bible specifically says "I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you" to the Israelites, so obviously if Hitler was a Christian, he was a very weak, very dead Christian.

Actually, Hitler was definitely blessed. Though I see your natural mistake of completely missing the part where he took over most of Europe. God probably let that happen to purge the Jews, didn't he! Ah, that makes even more sense then the Bible! Good on you, Hitler, for being a proper literalist Christian. You're probably enjoying a very wonderful time up in Heaven, now, aren't you!
(Okay, sorry if that pushes that a little too far, but it really bothers me when Christians point out the evidence that God is there by pointing out the evidence he isn't.)

 

[Hall Kervean]

Okay, so there is a lot I'd love to discuss, but I think the best thing would be to tackle the evolution stuff.

So, right off the bat you've got a problem that a lot of people who don't think evolution will work; You're only at 4/5ths on the frame of mind or the understanding of it. What i'm talking about is:
"Well, how did they receive information to know that they had to transform from a normal cell to one that has a motor"
No one told them. You probably know that, but lets not even use that language (Not that I didn't say 'you don't believe in evolution' either?). Evolution is a constant barrage of small, accidental changes. The only thing that makes it intelligent is the 'survival of the fittest' mechanism culling the loser changes. But there has to be a reason for particular changes to survive compared to the alternatives.

Since it's constant, we have had 5,000 years of recorded history (I'm starting with Sumer), so we, as humans, should have had some biological changes; especially considering it was only 100K years ago that we completely split off as homo sapiens from neanderthals (might have been earlier, Idk, I don't look into that). So, in that 100-30K year range we had major body changes, but in the last five thousand we've had none?

The main problem I see with survival of the fittest is that that and evolution don't fit together. The former works, and plays out today! The latter, when paired with survival of the fittest, doesn't.
Why, you may be asking?
Mutations, at least that we've seen for the past 400 years or so, have NEVER been beneficial. Never! They always add an extra arms or misshape us. They're not beneficial in any way.
On a similar note, back to reproduction, if one small change was made to it.
The wall, for instance, suddenly couldn't block




Reproductive Tails
For the sperm tails, you've got to take a step back. No one forms a whole tail 'like that'. At least, its unlikely. Much more likely is a little protein in the cell wall that allowed the sperm to move forward by deforming the wall. Because, if you think about it, sperm would probably work fine being 'fired' into a mate and given the chance to drift about. Fertility would be less likely, but it could still happen. BUT. If your sperm started moving a little they are way better off. Even if they all run in opposite directions, there will be a few that go the right way.
Now this is a great example too because we can see directly how this tiny improvement would have a HUGE impact on reproductive success.
But without it, the whole thing falls apart.
Boom.
End of species.

Now, thats speculation my speculation, but it is also a good (theoretical) example of evolution. I don't know where sperm tails came from but I will throw out this short video explaining how proteins make your muscles work. http://study.com/academy/lesson/muscle-contraction-actin-and-myocin-bonding.html Please hit me up if you have questions.

Spoiler: Birds and bees

(Also, I expect you want to tell me that these crappy, slow moving sperm would dissolve in the acidic environment, or would not be able to make it through the fairly complex architecture of the female genitalia. Remember that women evolved along side men. Its likely that when sperm were much simpler, so were vaginas and fallopian tubes. There probably were females who had mutations causing high acidity, but they couldn't breed until sperm became more resilient so they did not direct evolution in the wrong direction)

Spoiler: More birds and bees

Without everything I previously described, a female would be infected by bacteria, viruses, and the like. Now, don't tell me they evolved along side them. Because from what I recall, we started from single-celled organisms.

My laptop's having "issues," so I'll post these in chunks.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Argh
I have 4 word walls to pick apart, plus a few scattered questions.
I have homework.
Dang, this is gonna be one long evening.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Real example - single cell eye
So, a real example from actual researchers (Sadly I can only find articles, not the paper). Anyway, take an eye. Its hard to see how an eye could form. But here is a single cell organism with a perfect analogy of an eye. A bowing in the cell wall allows it to focus light like your eyes cornea and lense and a photosensitive chemical (I think) acts as the detector, much your your far more complex retina. The thing I like about this is that all of these elements exist in a cell anyway. It just happens that they have aligned here to serve a whole new purpose.
Heres a link: https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/single-cell-eyeball-creature-startles-scientists

Without a central nervous system, it does nothing for the organism.
The whole point of tiny changes over long periods of time is that they're productive and useful.
Not that they have things pop up out of nowhere.
We don't have that kind of issue for the most part.
So are we the pinnacle of evolution?
Is there nowhere to go but down?

 

[Collinbu98]

Now, I don't want to steal any thunder from Ironrot for when he shows up, but beneficial mutations have happened and do. Here's a three second Google search: http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-human

Humans have changed over the last 5,000 years, and if you're talking about a full species change, that takes more than 5000 years.

And yes, women would get infected with viruses, but not every time. They'd still live long enough to reproduce and give birth before they caught whatever disease killed them, so there's that.

As for the single cell eye, it's fairly easy to see that the purpose of that example was to show that, though at that point the organism didn't have a purpose for the stuff, it was all still there for when it did develop a purpose. And humans are not the "pinnacle of evolution". We still are continuing to develop. I believe right now our biggest project is increasing brain size as far as evolution is concerned, and that has been happening. That's how our scientific progress is always increasing. Well, that and the instant communication of the Internet and whatnot, but that in itself is evidence of the increased intelligence of the human race.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Turning Chickens into Dinosaurs
Here a link I'd prefer, mostly because its about the skull, rather than the legs. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150512-bird-grows-face-of-dinosaur
Heres how that works: You don't use all of your DNA.
If you think about that it makes a lot of sense. You only grow arms (hopefully) where you're supposed to. But the cells in your arm get all the same DNA as every other cells. They filter out the 'arm' DNA (I've forgotten how exactly) so that you only get those cells where you need them. That 'filter' is also effected but the random mutations of evolution,which acts to random;y turn on an off which parts of your DNA are affect which parts of your body.
In some cases, there are entire sections of DNA that are not actually used (So my biologist friend tells me). There are also likely parts of your DNA that are used in different areas of your body. For example, I'd say there is some good overlap between an arm and a leg, but obviously they would get a few different parts as well.

So, the chickens. Essentially, the scientists have turned off some elements of DNA, or turned on others by changing that filtering effect and its resulted in a chicken that grew a skull much more similar to a dinosaur. Actually, in that article, they give an alligator skull for comparison. Its not proof that chickens are dinosaurs, but it does suggest that they are related.

Tell me if you have questions about any of this.

Alrighty, so.
I have already specified that archaeopteryx is a special kind of not dinosaur.
Nor is it bird.
It's just special in its own special way.
But honestly? That's pretty much a bird already.
Not to say it isn't cool!
Honestly, it's pretty neat!
But that's adding a bird head to a bird. Not as cool as a raptor.

And you know what else?
The fiddling they did wasn't natural.
It was controlled by a creator.
Seeing as there's ethical questions, I'd even venture to say it's a loving creator

I didn't know about the filter, but I feel like that actually benefits creation mote than evolution.
Why's that, you may be asking?
Well, I'd say, that's yet another step that has to be absolutely perfect to get a functioning being. Small minute changes just don't cut it, Ima be honest.

Also, Collinbu98 , you have to wait your turn now.

 

[Vudukudu]

Guys, proposing an alternate hypothesis. Sano Sauro doesn't actually believe any of this and is just jerking us around.

 

[Ironrot]

Okay, so there is a lot I'd love to discuss, but I think the best thing would be to tackle the evolution stuff.

So, right off the bat you've got a problem that a lot of people who don't think evolution will work; You're only at 4/5ths on the frame of mind or the understanding of it. What i'm talking about is:
"Well, how did they receive information to know that they had to transform from a normal cell to one that has a motor"
No one told them. You probably know that, but lets not even use that language (Not that I didn't say 'you don't believe in evolution' either?). Evolution is a constant barrage of small, accidental changes. The only thing that makes it intelligent is the 'survival of the fittest' mechanism culling the loser changes. But there has to be a reason for particular changes to survive compared to the alternatives.

Since it's constant, we have had 5,000 years of recorded history (I'm starting with Sumer), so we, as humans, should have had some biological changes; especially considering it was only 100K years ago that we completely split off as homo sapiens from neanderthals (might have been earlier, Idk, I don't look into that). So, in that 100-30K year range we had major body changes, but in the last five thousand we've had none?

The main problem I see with survival of the fittest is that that and evolution don't fit together. The former works, and plays out today! The latter, when paired with survival of the fittest, doesn't.
Why, you may be asking?
Mutations, at least that we've seen for the past 400 years or so, have NEVER been beneficial. Never! They always add an extra arms or misshape us. They're not beneficial in any way.
On a similar note, back to reproduction, if one small change was made to it.
The wall, for instance, suddenly couldn't block




Reproductive Tails
For the sperm tails, you've got to take a step back. No one forms a whole tail 'like that'. At least, its unlikely. Much more likely is a little protein in the cell wall that allowed the sperm to move forward by deforming the wall. Because, if you think about it, sperm would probably work fine being 'fired' into a mate and given the chance to drift about. Fertility would be less likely, but it could still happen. BUT. If your sperm started moving a little they are way better off. Even if they all run in opposite directions, there will be a few that go the right way.
Now this is a great example too because we can see directly how this tiny improvement would have a HUGE impact on reproductive success.
But without it, the whole thing falls apart.
Boom.
End of species.

Please don't edit inside quotes like that without denoting your changes. (Anyone reading the above should go find the original, that quotes been f#*ked with. I've highlighted the additions that have been made in red but I might not have caught all of them.

So, Couple answers. I'll keep them short.

• We have evolved in the last few thousand years. One key arguments to the paleo diet is that our digestive systems have evolved to handled a farming diet (heavy on grains, availability of milk (lactose intolerance is much more prevalent in different cultures)). This is because people who handled that diet better tended to survive better in famine conditions.
• Human's largely don't evolve in more recent history. We have removed the vast majority of things that kill us. And the things that do typically kill us after reproductive age (if you reproduce and then die, then you can call it a successful step as you've passed on your genes). Survival of the fittest no longer works for us because we are all the fittest.
• People who grow with terrible deformities usually either die young, or don't have kids. That is the closest you'll get to an example of survival of the fittest in humans in the last few thousand years.
• If you want examples of evolution in animals, look at the effect of selective breeding in dogs. This is a good example of evolution where a human is acting as the selector for the fittest animals

You've misunderstood what mutations are and how they work:

• Yeah, its a dangly extra arm. Its also the subtle changes in your height and the shape of your face, colour of your skin, etc. You are a mishmash of your parents DNA, plus hundreds of little mutations.
• A mutation occurs at an individual level. It can't end a species. It spreads through the species only by reproduction (Unless you want to talk about 'behavioural evolution' but lets not).
• If a mutation occurs which prevents reproduction, that mutation cannot reproduce thus is not introduced to the species. This NEVER propagates.

Collinbu98 You're getting a bit aggressive. Also, you're never going to convince someone who believes in God that God doesn't exist with pure logic. They've done the very human thing of picking their opinion and then finding the best justification they can later.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Now it's Sano's turn.
To refer to himself in third person.

If we zoomed in, one might think tiny mutations over time.
Sure, it's hard to think, but it's easy to believe.
Take the motor on a bacteria.
We base our motor designs off of it.
It's still more efficient than ours are, at least as of like 2013.
There are more than forty interconnecting parts. Now, there's a tiny chance that all forty were in the same area, and happened to be lying around. Via the force, magnets, and pure, unbridled SCIENCE, they came together to form a motor that outmatches our carefully designed and tested motors.

Zoom out a little farther.
Now we see the other parts of the bacteria.
Mitochondria! Without it, nothing works! It has numerous interconnecting parts in and of itself! For instance, where the reactions take place, it forms sort of "ripples" to have more efficient burning of nutrients.
Cytoplasm! Without it, nothing would go where it needed to! Cytoplasm is pretty simple, but it needs to be created by the cell itself, or by other cells. It can't just appear.
Nucleus! The center of the cell, where DNA (with billions of strands and, if even ONE is wrong, the entire cell if screwed over.) works out the construction of the mitochondria and other stuff on the molecular level. It also controls the motor, the movement, and any instincts the bacteria has.

Zoom out a bit farther.
Now we have a bacteria.
Let's call him steve.
Steve has instincts and needs.
Now, as we all know, without food Steve would perish. But if Steve was just a collection of the billions or so exact pieces that are needed to form a bacteria, he wouldn't know that. Steve would starve and die. But, Steve does know it. He knows where to get food, how to get the food, how to reproduce, how to identify threats, how to colonize, how to breathe, etc.
If Steve's DNA screwed up (one starand out of billions. Strand is misspelled on accident. I, an intelligent person, made a mistake, and I'm at maybe 1K words, at most.), then Steve would suffocate, starve, be eaten, or be infertile. That's not counting his natural abilities, like surviving high temperatures and such.

Zoom out a bit farther.
Now we have a bunch of bacteria. Steve's neighbors.
When another bacteria dies, one bacteria can pick up its DNA and become immune to, say, higher temperatures.
Bacteria know exactly what other bacteria are, and can cooperate with them to form a colony. Enough so that they can become visible. They can work together to evade and hunt, and it works in perfect cohesion.

We started at forty parts.
Then there's probably thousands, without DNA.
With it, that's billions.
With multiple bacteria, that's well into the quadrillions of required interconnecting parts that must work exactly right to create a colony that can effectively hunt and eat.
Leave a lego guy sitting on the floor for three billion years. It won't come together.

That's for a simple microorganism.
Not to mention the earth itself and the stars that just "happened" to come along, along with every other creature in existence.

 

[Ironrot]

Real example - single cell eye
So, a real example from actual researchers (Sadly I can only find articles, not the paper). Anyway, take an eye. Its hard to see how an eye could form. But here is a single cell organism with a perfect analogy of an eye. A bowing in the cell wall allows it to focus light like your eyes cornea and lense and a photosensitive chemical (I think) acts as the detector, much your your far more complex retina. The thing I like about this is that all of these elements exist in a cell anyway. It just happens that they have aligned here to serve a whole new purpose.
Heres a link: https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/single-cell-eyeball-creature-startles-scientists

Without a central nervous system, it does nothing for the organism.
The whole point of tiny changes over long periods of time is that they're productive and useful.
Not that they have things pop up out of nowhere.
We don't have that kind of issue for the most part.
So are we the pinnacle of evolution?
Is there nowhere to go but down?

Gotta be quick here (Next reply will probably come in about 4hrs):

• You don't need a whole nervous system. You just need to tie it to locomotion so you can move away. That just takes on little electrical or chemical impulse. This is a single cell organism. Think simple.
• The point of that example is that this is a possible way that an eye, in all its complexity, could form from a simple beginning.

Going down?

• We're not. But we don't direct our evolution anymore (Explained in prev. post)
• Evolution is a flawed optimization algorithm in that is only finds local, not global maxima. It can't go down, but it can get stuck at the nearest high point. (Think like walking to a higher mountain peak, you might have to step into a ridge. Evolution doesn't do that well)

 

[Hall Kervean]

Ironrot
You're in line now.
BUT
Please don't chastise Collinbu98 for being "hostile," then say that I'm illogical and have been grasping at straws to prove an opinion, when I've not preached about Jesus's love but twice.

 

[Ironrot]

Now it's Sano's turn.
To refer to himself in third person.

If we zoomed in, one might think tiny mutations over time.
Sure, it's hard to think, but it's easy to believe.
Take the motor on a bacteria.
We base our motor designs off of it.
It's still more efficient than ours are, at least as of like 2013.
There are more than forty interconnecting parts. Now, there's a tiny chance that all forty were in the same area, and happened to be lying around. Via the force, magnets, and pure, unbridled SCIENCE, they came together to form a motor that outmatches our carefully designed and tested motors.

Zoom out a little farther.
Now we see the other parts of the bacteria.
Mitochondria! Without it, nothing works! It has numerous interconnecting parts in and of itself! For instance, where the reactions take place, it forms sort of "ripples" to have more efficient burning of nutrients.
Cytoplasm! Without it, nothing would go where it needed to! Cytoplasm is pretty simple, but it needs to be created by the cell itself, or by other cells. It can't just appear.
Nucleus! The center of the cell, where DNA (with billions of strands and, if even ONE is wrong, the entire cell if screwed over.) works out the construction of the mitochondria and other stuff on the molecular level. It also controls the motor, the movement, and any instincts the bacteria has.

Zoom out a bit farther.
Now we have a bacteria.
Let's call him steve.
Steve has instincts and needs.
Now, as we all know, without food Steve would perish. But if Steve was just a collection of the billions or so exact pieces that are needed to form a bacteria, he wouldn't know that. Steve would starve and die. But, Steve does know it. He knows where to get food, how to get the food, how to reproduce, how to identify threats, how to colonize, how to breathe, etc.
If Steve's DNA screwed up (one starand out of billions. Strand is misspelled on accident. I, an intelligent person, made a mistake, and I'm at maybe 1K words, at most.), then Steve would suffocate, starve, be eaten, or be infertile. That's not counting his natural abilities, like surviving high temperatures and such.

Zoom out a bit farther.
Now we have a bunch of bacteria. Steve's neighbors.
When another bacteria dies, one bacteria can pick up its DNA and become immune to, say, higher temperatures.
Bacteria know exactly what other bacteria are, and can cooperate with them to form a colony. Enough so that they can become visible. They can work together to evade and hunt, and it works in perfect cohesion.

We started at forty parts.
Then there's probably thousands, without DNA.
With it, that's billions.
With multiple bacteria, that's well into the quadrillions of required interconnecting parts that must work exactly right to create a colony that can effectively hunt and eat.
Leave a lego guy sitting on the floor for three billion years. It won't come together.

That's for a simple microorganism.
Not to mention the earth itself and the stars that just "happened" to come along, along with every other creature in existence.

• I think you're giving too much personification to a bacteria. They don't have instincts so much as reflexes.
• Before you start trying to pick more holes in evolution, please read and reread by posts. You need to understand evolution before you can dispute it. Otherwise you're just arguing about nonsense that no one thinks is correct. (Like old mate a few pages back who didn't believe what maths was and thought that 1+1 might not equal 2)

 

[Hall Kervean]

Now for Axel!
Miracles do happen, but in this case, my personal belief is that they kind of picked opposite ends of the spectrum, like a short dog and a big one. They're both dogs, so it works. But, of course, I would note that most of what happened on the Ark was a miracle.
If you don't agree, realize the entire earth was being flooded at the time, and outside of those on the ark, not a soul survived.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Iron, I literally wrote them whilst you were writing yours.
Also, again.
You're in line, hold tight buddy

 

[Ironrot]

Ironrot
You're in line now.
BUT
Please don't chastise Collinbu98 for being "hostile," then say that I'm illogical and have been grasping at straws to prove an opinion, when I've not preached about Jesus's love but twice.

That more more about the nature of people than you. Literally everyone does it. I do it. I'm just saying, I doubt anyones opinions will change.

I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm just trying to teach you want evolution is. Not that its true. (Although, I do think its the best explanation)

 

[Hall Kervean]

To be fair, none of that has anything to do with God either. Beauty in nature isn't evidence of God. On a personal note, its part of why I don't need God. The universe is beautiful enough with me needing to add extra's.




But on that set and on a spiritual note; That beauty exists in nature isn't evidence of God. If anything its a part of the reason that I don't need God. The universe is amazing enough without us needing to add extras.

I don't like all of Collinbu98 's points (take some, leave some) but I feel the need to point out:
- Things evolve together, but you'll see that in my previous post
- We know what types of teeth animals that eat berries and leaves have, and they are pretty different to a carnivore. Its not worth pursuing the idea that carnivores had teeth and digestive systems that also functioned effectively for eating only plants.

Keep in mind Hall Kervean , The Bible doesn't have to be true. God didn't write it and its largely non-literal (Actually, I heard in a podcast with guest who had a PhD in Theology that the large-scale idea of taking the bible literally is only about 100 years old).

Just a message to all of us:
If something makes sense or is hard to dispute, often that is a sign to take it on board. We'll all draw our conclusions about God but while I think the traditional God is not compatible with science, there's a lot of smart people who still believe in God and agree with science because they choose to believe that the bible isn't a true story, but God might still be out there using it to offer guidance. It doesn't have to be true.



Also, fun side note:
We know that evolution as a process does work in areas other than biology. For instance, on an AI course I recently used a genetic algorithm that employed the principles of evolution (reproduction, mutation and survival of the fittest) to design a neural network that was effective at classification of flavour's of wine.

Firstly!
Tell me how the mandelbrot set evolved from a 2+2 to an infinite shape that has yet to be fully explored by mathematicians because our computers can't fit it.
Evolution honestly has no explanation for there being a beautiful, yet infinite shape in math.
Because it can't evolve, and can't get there otherwise.

Secondly!
No, they don't
Bacteria evolved into people, from what I've seen.
Common ancestor stuff.
So if the bacteria evolved WITH people, they'd become even leaner, meaner killing machines that could effectively wipe out any new resistance.

Spoiler: Birds and bees.

Again, if the woman had a simple vagina, the bacteria has had much, much more time to evolve than people. That vagina, and consequently, that woman and that child, would have no chance against such a fast and efficient piece of hardware. Any new defenses would be tiny, consistent changes that could easily be adapted to.
End of species? Yupsterdoodles.

Tertiarily!
We're omnivores. We don't need separate stomachs.
In fact, herbivore dinosaurs ate stones to grind up their leaves! Tell me, then, that the brachiosaurus was a carnivore, since its stomach wasn't built to handle leaves. Now tell me, again. I believe in adaption. The T-Rex, for instance, could tear through leaves and swallow them, but perhaps earlier on it had different types of teeth?
After all, in the pre-flood world, it would be unlikely the could fossilize, given the time it takes to naturally fossilize something.

The Bible is actually true.
If the factual and identifiable parts are untrue, then who could believe the miracles?
So obviously, it is true through and through.

That's not an argument, that's a rallying cry.
Obviously, no one's gonna be persuaded
We're just trying to have fun and entertain ourselves.

Besides, you're just stating that you're right and I'm wrong, and science is on your side alone.
I've been using science, too.
And I'm not an expert in any field, at all.

That's not evolution. That's the gaining of intelligence. There's kinda a difference.
Evolution is applicable only to biology tbh. Everything else is an upgrade, or a gaining of knowledge.

 

[Hall Kervean]

And you're free to hold that opinion (because of secularism) but a cursory review of history says its factually wrong. Two things occurring in tandem doesn't mean what happens next is inexplicable - it means you have to think about it.

Free speech, freedom of conscience, civil liberties, and the like stemmed from opposition to Christianity and religious fervor, not collusion with it. Most of what are today considered inalienable rights are directly opposed to most literal religious practices - free speech is the right to slander god, freedom of worship is the right to follow other gods, the right to defend yourself is the right to violate the sixth commandment, the right to privacy is opposed to the arcane rules of books like Deuteronomy, so on so forth. These rights may not have been created specifically for the above reasons, but they all are inclusive of them.

To place literalism in its historical context, it was a reactionary move to respond to a predominantly non-theistic philosophical trend (which either eliminated god from the equation or put him/her in a corner) in Europe which recognized that the ethical system suggested by the Bible is highly irrational and unfair. Rather than admit there might be something less than 100% true, fundamentalists decided the only way to stand their ground was accept a completely literal reading. The problem with the belief that the world is getting better because of Christians turning to biblical literalism in the last two hundred years is that more people are turning away from Christianity in the last two hundred years, and the world has gotten demonstrably better in that time. Christianity hasn't substantively improved, they're just no longer in charge of all the decision making, which is why we're where we are.

The point is, fundamentalist Christians haven't exactly been behind a lot of the things worth calling "good causes." Historical records and surveys of the general Evangelical Protestant population and their Church Organizations (the broad genre which encompasses the large majority of literalists) indicates the following: They opposed abolition, they opposed women's suffrage, they supported Prohibition, they opposed accepting Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler, they supported Jim Crow, they opposed the Civil Rights movement. Today, the majority (57%) don't even believe in any form of evolution, and display condescending attitudes toward the poor, sick, and addicted. The Vice President of the USA, a staunch literalist, has displayed tacit support for the notion that federal funds be directed to organizations that psychologically abuse and use electric shock therapy on homosexual adolescents. The literalist/conservative American South has made a habit of washing slavery out of textbooks or talking about it like it was a wonderful example of Christian charity.

I don't see precisely where they're doing better, and, to toss out some other related bits of info -
1. Martin Luther King Jr., the "golden boy of Christians doing good things in America" wasn't a literalist.
2. Ranked by numbers, the American founding fathers were primarily Christian non-literalists influenced by Deism, then Evangelicals (and even then, fundamentalism wasn't common among them), and then atheists and agnostics. This all stems from study of their public and private words, religious backgrounds, etc.
3. The household name Enlightenment philosophers the Western world is built on today were either Catholic (non-literalist) or atheists.
4. Religiosity is steadily declining, not growing.
5. The world is a better place despite literalism, not because of it. They've lost all their attempts at influencing public affairs - couldn't stop abolition, couldn't stop evolution being taught in schools, couldn't stop women's suffrage, couldn't stop Civil Rights, couldn't stop gay marriage.

Throw the factors together, and the conclusion is clear - they're not responsible for making the world more equal, more safe, more open to discussion, more democratic, or more fair. That goes to, well, everyone opposed to them.

Well, let's start!
Firstly, your first sentence confused me.
"You're welcome to hold that opinion, but you're wrong."
K then.

I'll try and break it down.

Free speech, freedom of conscience, civil liberties, and the like stemmed from opposition to Christianity and religious fervor, not collusion with it. Most of what are today considered inalienable rights are directly opposed to most literal religious practices - free speech is the right to slander god, freedom of worship is the right to follow other gods, the right to defend yourself is the right to violate the sixth commandment, the right to privacy is opposed to the arcane rules of books like Deuteronomy, so on so forth. These rights may not have been created specifically for the above reasons, but they all are inclusive of them.

First, shooting yourself in the foot.
I said that the stupidness of religion when it wasn't shown literally.
Here's a time when it wasn't shown literally.
Look, stupid things happened, so the unalienable rights were created.

Free speech is the right to speak up against the government and share an opinion. (first year U.S. history)

Freedom of religion allows you to worship any god you want. Not meant to spit in God's face. You see, those men were Christians who wrote it! It just means you can worship how you want to worship.
Which is encouraged in the Bible.

The right to defend yourself is actually biblical. Y'see, the sixth commandment says "thou shalt not murder" Murder and killing are different in practice. Killing in an army is ok. Killing to defend yourself is ok. Murder to get money is not.

You are no longer under the law if you follow Jesus. So that isn't actually applicable.

And your final point is somewhat true. It is true that you could do all that in that setting. But it wasn't the purpose, which means they honestly aren't there for that reason.

Paragraph 2

To place literalism in its historical context, it was a reactionary move to respond to a predominantly non-theistic philosophical trend (which either eliminated god from the equation or put him/her in a corner) in Europe which recognized that the ethical system suggested by the Bible is highly irrational and unfair. Rather than admit there might be something less than 100% true, fundamentalists decided the only way to stand their ground was accept a completely literal reading. The problem with the belief that the world is getting better because of Christians turning to biblical literalism in the last two hundred years is that more people are turning away from Christianity in the last two hundred years, and the world has gotten demonstrably better in that time. Christianity hasn't substantively improved, they're just no longer in charge of all the decision making, which is why we're where we are.

I'm just gonna go ahead and say it.
The ancient Catholics added to the Bible.
So the religious authorities in the European days weren't actually following the Bible as written. They were adding things onto it, like Purgatory. So many things, during the *cough* non-literal-interpretation days, that they honestly screwed up. Honestly and royally.
The system put in place by the Catholics was highly irrational and unfair. Not the one by the Bible.

That's one way to interpret events.
1st Timothy 4:1
God called it.
Basically, this is a purification of the church. Those who truly believe will stay, but those who are easily swayed will not.

 

[Vudukudu]

And you're free to hold that opinion (because of secularism) but a cursory review of history says its factually wrong. Two things occurring in tandem doesn't mean what happens next is inexplicable - it means you have to think about it.

Free speech, freedom of conscience, civil liberties, and the like stemmed from opposition to Christianity and religious fervor, not collusion with it. Most of what are today considered inalienable rights are directly opposed to most literal religious practices - free speech is the right to slander god, freedom of worship is the right to follow other gods, the right to defend yourself is the right to violate the sixth commandment, the right to privacy is opposed to the arcane rules of books like Deuteronomy, so on so forth. These rights may not have been created specifically for the above reasons, but they all are inclusive of them.

To place literalism in its historical context, it was a reactionary move to respond to a predominantly non-theistic philosophical trend (which either eliminated god from the equation or put him/her in a corner) in Europe which recognized that the ethical system suggested by the Bible is highly irrational and unfair. Rather than admit there might be something less than 100% true, fundamentalists decided the only way to stand their ground was accept a completely literal reading. The problem with the belief that the world is getting better because of Christians turning to biblical literalism in the last two hundred years is that more people are turning away from Christianity in the last two hundred years, and the world has gotten demonstrably better in that time. Christianity hasn't substantively improved, they're just no longer in charge of all the decision making, which is why we're where we are.

The point is, fundamentalist Christians haven't exactly been behind a lot of the things worth calling "good causes." Historical records and surveys of the general Evangelical Protestant population and their Church Organizations (the broad genre which encompasses the large majority of literalists) indicates the following: They opposed abolition, they opposed women's suffrage, they supported Prohibition, they opposed accepting Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler, they supported Jim Crow, they opposed the Civil Rights movement. Today, the majority (57%) don't even believe in any form of evolution, and display condescending attitudes toward the poor, sick, and addicted. The Vice President of the USA, a staunch literalist, has displayed tacit support for the notion that federal funds be directed to organizations that psychologically abuse and use electric shock therapy on homosexual adolescents. The literalist/conservative American South has made a habit of washing slavery out of textbooks or talking about it like it was a wonderful example of Christian charity.

I don't see precisely where they're doing better, and, to toss out some other related bits of info -
1. Martin Luther King Jr., the "golden boy of Christians doing good things in America" wasn't a literalist.
2. Ranked by numbers, the American founding fathers were primarily Christian non-literalists influenced by Deism, then Evangelicals (and even then, fundamentalism wasn't common among them), and then atheists and agnostics. This all stems from study of their public and private words, religious backgrounds, etc.
3. The household name Enlightenment philosophers the Western world is built on today were either Catholic (non-literalist) or atheists.
4. Religiosity is steadily declining, not growing.
5. The world is a better place despite literalism, not because of it. They've lost all their attempts at influencing public affairs - couldn't stop abolition, couldn't stop evolution being taught in schools, couldn't stop women's suffrage, couldn't stop Civil Rights, couldn't stop gay marriage.

Throw the factors together, and the conclusion is clear - they're not responsible for making the world more equal, more safe, more open to discussion, more democratic, or more fair. That goes to, well, everyone opposed to them.

Well, let's start!
Firstly, your first sentence confused me.
"You're welcome to hold that opinion, but you're wrong."
K then.

I'll try and break it down.

Free speech, freedom of conscience, civil liberties, and the like stemmed from opposition to Christianity and religious fervor, not collusion with it. Most of what are today considered inalienable rights are directly opposed to most literal religious practices - free speech is the right to slander god, freedom of worship is the right to follow other gods, the right to defend yourself is the right to violate the sixth commandment, the right to privacy is opposed to the arcane rules of books like Deuteronomy, so on so forth. These rights may not have been created specifically for the above reasons, but they all are inclusive of them.

First, shooting yourself in the foot.
I said that the stupidness of religion when it wasn't shown literally.
Here's a time when it wasn't shown literally.
Look, stupid things happened, so the unalienable rights were created.

Free speech is the right to speak up against the government and share an opinion. (first year U.S. history)

Freedom of religion allows you to worship any god you want. Not meant to spit in God's face. You see, those men were Christians who wrote it! It just means you can worship how you want to worship.
Which is encouraged in the Bible.

The right to defend yourself is actually biblical. Y'see, the sixth commandment says "thou shalt not murder" Murder and killing are different in practice. Killing in an army is ok. Killing to defend yourself is ok. Murder to get money is not.

You are no longer under the law if you follow Jesus. So that isn't actually applicable.

And your final point is somewhat true. It is true that you could do all that in that setting. But it wasn't the purpose, which means they honestly aren't there for that reason.

Paragraph 2

To place literalism in its historical context, it was a reactionary move to respond to a predominantly non-theistic philosophical trend (which either eliminated god from the equation or put him/her in a corner) in Europe which recognized that the ethical system suggested by the Bible is highly irrational and unfair. Rather than admit there might be something less than 100% true, fundamentalists decided the only way to stand their ground was accept a completely literal reading. The problem with the belief that the world is getting better because of Christians turning to biblical literalism in the last two hundred years is that more people are turning away from Christianity in the last two hundred years, and the world has gotten demonstrably better in that time. Christianity hasn't substantively improved, they're just no longer in charge of all the decision making, which is why we're where we are.

I'm just gonna go ahead and say it.
The ancient Catholics added to the Bible.
So the religious authorities in the European days weren't actually following the Bible as written. They were adding things onto it, like Purgatory. So many things, during the *cough* non-literal-interpretation days, that they honestly screwed up. Honestly and royally.
The system put in place by the Catholics was highly irrational and unfair. Not the one by the Bible.

That's one way to interpret events.
1st Timothy 4:1
God called it.
Basically, this is a purification of the church. Those who truly believe will stay, but those who are easily swayed will not.

I'd address everything but frankly
>Cant understand concept of being legally able to hold an incorrect opinion
>Thinks is qualified to participate in logical discussion

 

[Ironrot]

Hall Kervean please start colouring quotes or something

 

[Destiny7]

I foresee nothing hostile or problematic coming from this thread.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Quick note! The church is not an enormous, wide-spanning body (except catholics). It is on a body-by-body basis. While many may have supported the following, not all of them did.

The point is, fundamentalist Christians haven't exactly been behind a lot of the things worth calling "good causes." Historical records and surveys of the general Evangelical Protestant population and their Church Organizations (the broad genre which encompasses the large majority of literalists) indicates the following: They opposed abolition, they opposed women's suffrage, they supported Prohibition, they opposed accepting Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler, they supported Jim Crow, they opposed the Civil Rights movement. Today, the majority (57%) don't even believe in any form of evolution, and display condescending attitudes toward the poor, sick, and addicted. The Vice President of the USA, a staunch literalist, has displayed tacit support for the notion that federal funds be directed to organizations that psychologically abuse and use electric shock therapy on homosexual adolescents. The literalist/conservative American South has made a habit of washing slavery out of textbooks or talking about it like it was a wonderful example of Christian charity.

Misinterpreted a translation was the first one.
Indentured servants=/=slaves, but they didn't realize that. So they thought the Bible taught one thing, but it meant another.

The woman's suffrage thing, I don't know why. God expressly gives men and women nearly equal rights, with the exception of being a pastor (ONLY JOB FORBIDDEN TO WOMEN IN THE BIBLE, if memory serves) and the man should take charge in a household role.

Prohibition was a measure against getting people drunk, which is forbidden by the Bible. The prohibition's intentions were good, but the outcome wasn't. That's why it was supported.

Hmm. Never seen that. Can ye show me?

It should be noted Darwinists supported it, too But seriously. They certainly didn't read anything about that in the Bible. Geez. It even says "treat aliens (immigrants) like yourselves." So obviously, not literalist.

Also don't know why they declined to support the civil rights movement.

That's because evolution isn't supported by evidence, just theories, and it's against what it says in the Bible. That's not illogical to think of.

No they don't. Churches do much to support the needy, addicted, etc. That's actually not true. The majority of churches at least do that much.

So? That doesn't mean the church's opinions line up with that. We're still on the subject of the church itself and its belief, right?

That's also untrue. Conservatives and literalists both recognize that slavery was awful. Truly, it was the darkest time in American history. Where are you getting this stuff?


I don't see precisely where they're doing better, and, to toss out some other related bits of info -
1. Martin Luther King Jr., the "golden boy of Christians doing good things in America" wasn't a literalist.
2. Ranked by numbers, the American founding fathers were primarily Christian non-literalists influenced by Deism, then Evangelicals (and even then, fundamentalism wasn't common among them), and then atheists and agnostics. This all stems from study of their public and private words, religious backgrounds, etc.
3. The household name Enlightenment philosophers the Western world is built on today were either Catholic (non-literalist) or atheists.
4. Religiosity is steadily declining, not growing.
5. The world is a better place despite literalism, not because of it. They've lost all their attempts at influencing public affairs - couldn't stop abolition, couldn't stop evolution being taught in schools, couldn't stop women's suffrage, couldn't stop Civil Rights, couldn't stop gay marriage.

1. Point conceded.
2. And? That actually doesn't mean a thing. They were influenced by the writings of others and by the British's treatment. Besides, what they came up with actually coincides with what the Bible literally teaches.
3. That I'm not familiar with. Educidate me please!
4. 1 Timothy 4:1. God knows that. It just means the time for the rapture is coming.
5. The world is better is a debate for another thread. In fact, the first two and the last one are fighting words, again, for another thread. Civil rights and women's suffrage isn't a bad thing, and is promoted in the Bible. Of course, the bible doesn't condone murder, deception, and impurities (Bible's words, not mine).

Throw the factors together, and the conclusion is clear - they're not responsible for making the world more equal, more safe, more open to discussion, more democratic, or more fair. That goes to, well, everyone opposed to them.

You wish.
Equality? The Bible condoned it.
Safety? You didn't bring that point up, but God told us to love our enemies, did he not?
Open to discussion? You also didn't bring any evidence of that being detracted from to the table. But I suppose one could believe there was grounds for that.
Democratic? Greeks, who were polytheistic. Romans had a republic, which were also polytheistic.
Of course, God actually desired that there be no monarchy. He didn't want the Israelites to have a king, but after they demanded it, he allowed them to have one.
But I guess you could just gloss over that.
More fair? The Bible has the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, all on fairness.

IN ADDITION

I'm honestly not inclined to reply to any more of your points, because the last two times I did you dismissed it because you "Cant understand concept of being legally able to hold an incorrect opinion"

Everyone else on the thread has been pleasant to discuss things with, but when you just don't bother reading and just say "just stop, you're wrong and im right," I really don't want to discuss with you anymore.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Hall Kervean please start colouring quotes or something

Np.
I'll work on that for ye.

 

[Hall Kervean]

I don't believe in God simply because it is... insane from a psychological standpoint.
---
Technically, Theists worship a paranormal force they claim is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, however, the two rule each other out. A being can't be omnipotent AND omnibenevolent at the same time, without enforcing a stern brainwashing on anything that HAS a brain. And let me remind you about this so called "free will," that God gave us, which also doesn't make any fucking sense. If God is omnipotent, that means he is omnipresent. If he is omnipresent then he is the one that decided who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven before time and space existed, which rules out a thing like free will existing. By applying all of that, we have two options: A) God doesn't exist. B) The God portrayed in the Bible is actually a huge asshole.

Let me put it this way:
God created everything.
God is infinitely good.
God created everything, thus God created Satan, who is infinitely evil--
Wait, what? How? When? Yeah, exactly. Nothing like a being that is 100% good creating something that is 100% evil, because it had free will, but it did not because the being that made it is omnipotent and thus knew that the evil being would go rog-- Okay, enough.

Also, Theists claim that things cannot appear by themselves and need a universal programmer. A "God," so to speak. Then what gave beginning to God? If he made us, then what made him?

Not to mention, the Bible is (with all due respect,) a load of bullshit, and I have scientific proof to back that up. I don't doubt some of the events in the Exodus might be true, but Genesis? By doing proper mathematical calculations, we can determine the World (according to the Bible) was created roughly 6015 years ago. But there is scientific evidence that 7000 years B.C, (That's a little over 9000 years ago, bruh) the city of Jericho suffered heavy earthquakes. Wanna know where Jericho is? Not far off from Jerusalem, actually. Not to mention that Evolution is pretty much a proven phenomenon in nature at this point, which argues with the way that humans were created according to the book of Genesis.

Also, the whole thing with Noah and the Flood? That's probably just a bad mistranslation of one of the many chapters of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is regarded the earliest survived work of literature in human history. There is a lot of stuff about a Flood, an Ark, a guy collecting animals, and letting birds scout if it's safe to go off the Ark in there too.


Technically, Theists worship a paranormal force they claim is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, however, the two rule each other out. A being can't be omnipotent AND omnibenevolent at the same time, without enforcing a stern brainwashing on anything that HAS a brain. And let me remind you about this so called "free will," that God gave us, which also doesn't make any fucking sense. If God is omnipotent, that means he is omnipresent. If he is omnipresent then he is the one that decided who goes to Hell and who goes to Heaven before time and space existed, which rules out a thing like free will existing. By applying all of that, we have two options: A) God doesn't exist. B) The God portrayed in the Bible is actually a huge asshole.

I'll do my best!
He's not omnibenevolent. Sorry.

We do have free will. While he does know what you will choose, he still creates you. He, however, does not pick who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. He just creates an individual person and loves them, but knows what they'll choose in the end.
He's kind of like someone who oversees everything. He won't intervene and force you to make a decision.

He's omnipresent, which just means he's everywhere at once.
If we apply what I just said, even though he knew someone would reject him, he created them anyway. And that's loving. Would you make an AI that would reject you and attempt to make other AI reject you? Would you love it? Or would you just not make it?


Let me put it this way:
God created everything.
God is infinitely good.
God created everything, thus God created Satan, who is infinitely evil--
Wait, what? How? When? Yeah, exactly. Nothing like a being that is 100% good creating something that is 100% evil, because it had free will, but it did not because the being that made it is omnipotent and thus knew that the evil being would go rog-- Okay, enough.

Alright.
Satan is not infinitely evil. There is no such thing as infinitely evil. If God became evil, then that would be possible. As such, Satan does not have infinite power.

He did know it. However, he still loved the being enough to make it in the first place.

ALSO!!!!!
It allowed God to know (not that he didn't) which people would love him back, and which wouldn't.


Also, Theists claim that things cannot appear by themselves and need a universal programmer. A "God," so to speak. Then what gave beginning to God? If he made us, then what made him?

Nothing!
It's mind-boggling, honestly, and easy to dismiss. But God is the beginning and the end. We're not, and we're pretty stupid, comparatively. So we can't comprehend infinity.


Not to mention, the Bible is (with all due respect,) a load of bullshit, and I have scientific proof to back that up. I don't doubt some of the events in the Exodus might be true, but Genesis? By doing proper mathematical calculations, we can determine the World (according to the Bible) was created roughly 6015 years ago. But there is scientific evidence that 7000 years B.C, (That's a little over 9000 years ago, bruh) the city of Jericho suffered heavy earthquakes. Wanna know where Jericho is? Not far off from Jerusalem, actually. Not to mention that Evolution is pretty much a proven phenomenon in nature at this point, which argues with the way that humans were created according to the book of Genesis.

You can't prove anything with science, actually.
Fun fact.
You can show evidence for something, but you can't prove anything.
Evolution isn't proven undoubtably. Otherwise, it would be pretty easy to disprove what I've been saying this entire time.
But it's not, so either I'm delusionally insane (minus the latter. I'm obviously that ) or there's not a ton of convincing evidence.


Also, the whole thing with Noah and the Flood? That's probably just a bad mistranslation of one of the many chapters of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is regarded the earliest survived work of literature in human history. There is a lot of stuff about a Flood, an Ark, a guy collecting animals, and letting birds scout if it's safe to go off the Ark in there too.


Isn't that the one with the box?
Because physics, that's impossible. A box would flip over in the rain, and everything would perish.
MEANwhile, elements of the ark's design have been implemented in aircraft carriers.
So either the writer of the Bible was a philosophical, mathematical, scientific, and historical genius, or, bear with me, God wrote it.

That's what I got for now.

 

[Hall Kervean]

I don't understand, or WANT TO understand how a being that saves some people and sends others to hell to live through eternal torment is meant to be infinitely good.



He didn't. Free will. You choose whether you go there or not. Just accept Jesus to go to heaven. If ye don't, you're royally screwed.

And yes, I know that the Book of Revelations says there'll be a long period where people rise and get to straighten themselves out.



That's actually true, kind of. It'll basically revert the earth to pre-fall state, from what i understand, with the exception of people. They still have free will, but everything else acts like they did before the fall.



But after THAT, some will STILL go to hell.


Yup.

Especially since that same being is ALSO Omnipotent, which means he is the architect of everything, including our actions and the actions that earned us Hell in the first place.



Kind of yes, kind of no.
He created everything, yes.
However, your actions, that you and only you decide, earn your place in wherever you go.
On the other hand, God knows which one you'll pick. But he doesn't make you do it.

 

[Collinbu98]

Hall Kervean Your arguments seem to be generally devolving and the scope of our argument is widening so broadly that I'm not sure I'm following anything you're saying at this point. You clearly don't know much about any of the subjects we've talked about, and thus more of the debate is actually spending more time trying to convince you of things we're trying to teach and less on how those things apply to the Bible, so I'm going to try and start from the beginning with a list of questions I want answered straightforwardly, and any questions that you cannot answer I want you to either change your beliefs on or look up an article that supports your answer so I can refute it. Here we go:

1. In Noah's Ark, did it contain the viruses, bacteria, and insects of the world as well?
a. Or did they have to survive some other way?

2. How did these animals (and viruses, bugs, and bacteria if applicable) manage to survive past the first generation?
a. And does this mean God supports incest?
b. If he does, why has since then incest been linked to increased risk of hazardous genetic things?

3. Why does God let bad things happen?
a. And why would you love an evil God?
b. Or, alternatively, how is he not evil?
c. Why is "faith" important enough that he'll send people to Hell for not having it?
d. How is it love to create something that you plan to torture eternally? Between being eternally tortured and never existing, I'd choose the latter.

4. What happened to all the water after the world was flooded "to the peaks of the highest mountain"?

5. How is evolution poorly supported in any way shape or form? I'm aware you clearly don't understand it, but still... if your problem is it's unlikely, that's kind of the whole big thing about it. It's unlikely, but the universe is so large and so much time passed since the creation of the universe that it was bound to happen eventually.

6. If God exists because the universe couldn't have created itself, why was God able to create himself? And if it's because he's all powerful, why aren't there an infinite number of all powerful Gods? And if it's because those are all the same God because of omnipresence, wouldn't that mean he would have all possible variations of his own self and therefore have infinite personalities and an infinite number of decisions and therefore an inability to make any decision at all? I mean, that's really hardcore meta-physics, but try to understand it if you can here.

7. Why do you believe in God? "Because he's the best answer" doesn't cut it, because he isn't. If he is, I want a really convincing argument telling me why all of the smartest people on Earth don't believe in him.

8. If God was literally all-powerful, then wouldn't he have to literally perform all possible actions? Because if he doesn't do everything possible and impossible, then he's being limited by his own decisions, and therefore he isn't all-powerful. Again, metaphysics, but it's a logical argument.

9. Do you believe in God because you believe he's the logical choice, or because if you give up your belief in God all of your life becomes meaningless and you'll go into a big existential crisis? I'd actually really start to respect you if you chose the answer, but if there's a third option I'd like to hear it as well.

10. How do you justify the fact that the Bible makes mention of unicorns being real, cockatrices being real (a type of dragon chicken, I think?), giants and half-angels being real, and a million other things that are laughably fantastical? If you want me to quote passages I can, though it may take me a while. (And it will of course depend on the version you use, but I believe all of them say something or another about at least a few of these things.)

11. How old is the Earth? You told me 6000 years, but then when I questioned you about it you ended up tell me a much older answer.


Additionally, sorry for circling back on a few things here, I'm trying to keep things organized here so I thought I'd be thorough. And, when necessary, site your sources please! Nothing you say about Noah's ark inspiring modern technology will count towards anything until you show me proof!