Pages: 1 2 3 4 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Everyone is Always Right  (Read 10120 times)
Offline (Male) time-killer-games
Posted on: December 27, 2013, 11:53:36 AM

Contributor
Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1166

View Profile Email
Prepare to comment with TL;DR

I am a Christian, and a sorry excuse of one you guys all know that. But something has been giving me major doubts about whether I think God truly exists, this topic is about that.

1) Religions are always right and anyone who doesn't agree with them are going to hell

Okay, every version of Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Mormans, etc) all believe they are going to heaven and virtually anyone who disagrees with them on who God is, or on whether He exists these people who dare disagree will be thrown into hell. I find this concept quite disturbing, and it's very hard for me to grasp why a loving God would do this. I don't know if there is more to it than that, but at a glance it doesn't seem fair.

•Catholics, specifically the most traditional ones believe in the same Bible Protestants do, but the Catholics also believe in several books that to their perspective were meant to be in the bible but the Protestants took those books out. These traditional Catholics believe Mary was sinless, just like Jesus Christ, and that they can pray to Mary, as well as many other profits besides the Trinity. So basically anyone who doesn't agree with the Catholic Bible is going to hell.

•Protestants believe everything the Catholics do minus the additional books that may or may not be a part of the sacred Word of God. They belief Jesus Christ is the I only way to God, so praying to Mary or anyone other than the Trinity is thought of as not Biblical. Which means people who do that and think they are supposed to pray to Mary, etc. they are going to hell for not believing in the right version of God. Anyone who doesn't believe in God or the right version of Him will also go to hell. The Protestant Bible, even though this is the one I personally believe to be the right version, it is just as confusing as just about any other conclusion as to how this universe came to be.

•Jews believe in only the old testimony, so they believe Protestants and Catholics are going to hell because they believe in the wrong Messiah. The real one hasn't come yet. Protestants believe salvation is a free gift that doesn't need to be earned through good works but rather by faith and a heart genuinely seeking to live for God and to love Him for what he's done. They believe we have no choice but to live in sin while on earth, because only Jesus was sinless. Jews don't believe this, they believe we can achieve favor with God and salvation from our good works, and we are capable to stop sinning. Again, anyone who doesn't agree with Jews are going to hell.

•Mormans have a faith based a vision a man had of an angel, the angel's name was Moroni, and Moroni told this guy that Christianity is a lie and not what God in tented to be labeled as his Holy Word. These people believe they can become their own God, and own and command their own gallaxies after they die. Anyone who disagrees is not going to have these rewards.

•All religions, Christianity or not, anyone who disagrees with them is going to hell. All of them think they are right and that they know everything and for all they know none of them are right.

2) Evolutionists are always right and anyone who disagrees is disagreeing with science and are ignorant morons

•Evolutionist believe based on fossil records and origins that living creatures over millions to billions of years will gradually transform from one species to the next in a way that in most cases will benefit the species if it is dominant over other species. Though it does make some sense where these guys are coming from, I've researched this and it has just as many holes in it as any religion does. You can't live for 1 million plus years so technically there is no concrete visual evidense of this unless you can go superman and warp to the future and see if anything has actually changed. Science is concrete and can actually be observed directly, it is not guess work. You can conclude by jumping that the earth has a gravitational pull, which is something that can be directly observed and tested.

Looking at fossils and every time you are disappointed because here and there you'll find a skeleton that doesn't make sense on your guesswork, you then conclude there are missing links yet to be found. FWI if evolution could be proven we'd find ton of missing links. If we find like one or two that doesn't mean anything because just about any extinct species we could call a missing link if we wanted. If we can find one species we believe adapted into something else then how come we can find any other of the several thousand variations in between? If apes evolved into us how come we see a ton of ape and human skeletons and hardly anything the could be a possible transition? I' know it's possible and it makes sense why but my point being evolution is just as likely in it's current state to be proven as fact as just about any other conclusion about how this world came together.

3) Proof of both a higher deity and the conflicting lack there of.

•People found Noah's Ark fossilized, it was the same size scripture mentioned, it was in Turkey, which is where the bible said it came to shore after the flood. Tons of fossilized animail poop, suggesting there were animals on the ship. The architecture was quite noticeable, primitive staples that held the wood together were easily identifiable. They also found primitive anchors which helped keep the boat from rocking side to side during storms. The Ark is now it's own museum in Turkey. I hear all the time at church and from friends of my family about miracles including healing of the sick and raising of the dead after being dead for more than a day praying all in between, but I've never seen this ark or these miracles first hand.

•People also found much more missing links than I initially realized and I saw photos. But just like what was supposedly proof of Christianity I never saw these things in person.

Logged
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #1 Posted on: December 27, 2013, 12:51:38 PM

Developer
Location: Cappuccino, CA
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3110

View Profile
Quote
Okay, every version of Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Mormans, etc) all believe they are going to heaven
Hey, *whispers* you forgot muslims :P

Not only do they believe that, but they also believe almost the same religion verbatim, do you know Mohammed? He is the son of Noah... that's right, the same Noah from the Christian Bible who built the ark.

This is still one major thing I can not get across to my grandmother. The only major world religion that is truly fundamentally different is Buddhism.

Quote
2) Evolutionists are always right and anyone who disagrees is disagreeing with science and are ignorant morons
There are some pretty retarded scientists too though, take for instance Eugenics. We were doing it before the Nazi's were, where do you think Hitler got all the ideas? Not only that but when we captured Nazi scientists and other people, we didn't torture them like we do today like at Abu Ghraib where the U.S. Army tortured the prisoners from the war in Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

We gave them huge state dinners and what not to get information out them, but people who helped us fight the Nazi's such as Alan Turring, the father of modern computing. He wrote the ENIGMA machine which helped decrypt thousands of intercepted Nazi communications. We castrated him because he was gay, that is right...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

The British are going through a whole round of apologies regarding what they did to him in the news right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kg91IdWrGQ

Quote
3) Proof of both a higher deity and the conflicting lack there of.
You can't prove god doesn't exist though, he just most certainly isn't a white bearded person in the sky. From what I can tell religion is really just a method of humans organizing themselves, like governments kind of, though historically government and religion have always been at odds with each other. Kind of like ants or how birds flock together you know? They not only move so precisely but they all move at the same time! How do they do that? Well we don't know quite yet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocking_%28behavior%29

Seriously, how do they all up and decide at one time in a split second, that they are all going to move at the same time? That is amazing!

Another interesting thing to consider is also the hard problem of consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

If I am made up of all the same things as a desk or my house, how is it that I can feel things but the desk can't when I make a scratch in it? If I made a really advanced robot that could imitate humans so well you wouldn't know the difference, would it actually have feelings? I could make the robot "pretend" that it feels, but would it really feel? This goes back to "I think, therefore, I am"

What if I make an exact replica of you, down to the exact super position of every single atom, and stood both of you side by side, which one is the real you?
« Last Edit: December 27, 2013, 12:58:19 PM by Robert B Colton » Logged
I think it was Leonardo da Vinci who once said something along the lines of "If you build the robots, they will make games." or something to that effect.

Offline (Male) time-killer-games
Reply #2 Posted on: December 27, 2013, 01:10:46 PM

Contributor
Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1166

View Profile Email
Quote
Okay, every version of Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Mormans, etc) all believe they are going to heaven
Hey, *whispers* you forgot muslims :P that's why I said etc :P I already wrote a book that no one in a right mind would have enough patience to read without skimming

Seriously, how do they all up and decide at one time in a split second, that they are all going to move at the same time? That is amazing! This doesn't just apply to birds and religious people, I have a tendency to believe this applies to everyone. We all have traits that can be categorized as predictable or "rehearsed". There's just different categories such behavior falls under. Monkey see, monkey do, and monkey will do until it becomes second nature.

If I am made up of all the same things as a desk or my house, how is it that I can feel things but the desk can't when I make a scratch in it? If I made a really advanced robot that could imitate humans so well you wouldn't know the difference, would it actually have feelings? I could make the robot "pretend" that it feels, but would it really feel? This goes back to "I think, therefore, I am" Yo man that's pretty deep. =P

What if I make an exact replica of you, down to the exact super position of every single atom, and stood both of you side by side, which one is the real you? Okay I really have no idea where you are going with this one :P
« Last Edit: December 27, 2013, 01:21:22 PM by time-killer-games » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) TheExDeus
Reply #3 Posted on: December 27, 2013, 03:53:31 PM

Developer
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1872

View Profile
Quote
All religions, Christianity or not, anyone who disagrees with them is going to hell. All of them think they are right and that they know everything and for all they know none of them are right.
That quite sums it up. It's not necessarily about whose right or wrong though. For a very long time in a lot of religions it was who had more supporters. The more supporters you have the more power you have. And that is usually what it all is about. There are numerous cases in history were church has used its influence for politics and/or money. And while for the believers it's about god, for the guys running the thing it rarely is.

Quote
Evolutionists are always right and anyone who disagrees is disagreeing with science and are ignorant morons
That comes from the sad fact that they often are. Whenever you see a "debate" about evolution you see the same stupid questions asked 100 years straight, even though they have been answered 100 years ago. Like even now you can hear things like "If we come from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" kind of stupidity. Another one is "Evolution is just a theory". Not only it shows the persons lack of understanding evolution, but lack of intelligence in general, because an intelligent person usually at least reads a freaking flyer about evolution (if nothing else) before debating. And that is why most scientists or other persons who understand evolution and evidence behind it no longer even bother debating with these people. You know the "Definition of insanity" - doing the same thing over and over again and trying to get different results. That is what "debating" with creationists is like. When I see a "debate" from like the 70's and then a "debate" from today I can always see that 90% of the questions are the same, even though they were answered even in the 70's one.

Quote
Science is concrete and can actually be observed directly
This shows your lack of understanding about science. Science is not about observing things directly (because often times that is impossible), but by doing empiric experiments that shows consistent and predictable results about a theory (or where a theory is missing, then propose one that explains the results and perform additional experiments to confirm that theory). Even simple things like electrical resistance of a material cannot be measured directly. What is measured is current and voltage and then Ohm's law is used to get resistance. Even current cannot be measured directly, in digital ammeter this is done by having a shunt (resistor) in a way that constant voltage will give a known current. So basically everything is calculated using something else. There are actually very few things in this world that can be measured directly - only thing I can come up with is distance. Even things like temperature are measured using other quantities (like pressure).

Quote
If apes evolved into us how come we see a ton of ape and human skeletons and hardly anything the could be a possible transition?
Because very few things actually become fossils. It happens only in very specific places and in very specific conditions. Evolution happens over millions of years - in this time even things like bone degrade in 99.999% of cases. So that is why we have so many missing links, because only one in a bazillion ever becomes a fossil. But these links are not needed to prove evolution. They are needed for more precise mapping of human evolution. Evolution is not proved by fossils. Charles Darwin actually didn't use fossils when presenting his theory as he himself though of them as incomplete at the time. He used observations of living species. Just like scientists have proven evolution dozens of times in labs. So again, I don't know what "research" you did, but clearly not enough to actually come to a competent conclusion in the matter.

Quote
People found Noah's Ark fossilized,
The whole paragraph there is structured as a statement of fact, while it shouldn't be. You do say you haven't seen the thing in the end, but still, very misleading. If you actually see who made these statements, how very secretive they are about them and how inconsistent they are, then you wouldn't be so sure that they actually found the ark. If you mean the BASE expedition itself, then even they don't say that they found the Ark, but that it's "a candidate". So even themselves are not sure.

But in general extremely religious ones are not usually the ones running things. Like in Catholicism the guy running the thing is Pope from the Vatican. In the movie Religilous (which you might find offensive, but I think the idea was clear) Maher interviewed a guy from the clergy who is something like the "Science adviser" in Vatican. He is running the Vatican observatory or whatnot. And he did mention something I found interesting as that does seem the overall consensus in Vatican, but not for the rest of Catholics. He said that Bible shouldn't be taken literally - especially the parts about god creating earth and humans, as well as many miracles and things like that. He mentions that bible was written several thousand years ago, while modern reasoning about the world (with that he means science) is only about 400 or so years old. So there is a large gap between them and they don't conflict with one another, as the bible is a teaching, not facts about the world. And I say that this feeling is shared in Vatican as a whole, because in past few decades popes have said things like "evolution being more than just a hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Benedict_XVI)) or Vatican's statement that it's ok to believe in aliens (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/05/13/vatican-it-ok-for-catholics-to-believe-in-aliens/). Even things like apologizing for things done to Galileo and saying that he was correct. Many fundamentalist religious people disregard anything contradicting their faith automatically, but even if the highest institution for a religious group treats their holly book no more than an allegory, then maybe their followers should as well? Because that I think what religion originally was all about - not blind faith, but teaching. Bible is sometimes called a "teaching" for a reason, not "100 facts about Humans, Earth and the Universe".

Quote
What if I make an exact replica of you, down to the exact super position of every single atom, and stood both of you side by side, which one is the real you?
Both. The problem here is purely philosophical in that it's what yourself see as true or not, disregarding the facts themselves. You believe one of them has to be "not real" while in reality both of them clearly can be.

For example, in AI there is this thing called the "Turing test". Many people think that if a machine can be so human like it can be mistaken for a human, then it still isn't one, because it somehow "imitates" everything it does. But how is that different from humans themselves? If a machine has an idea, then how that idea is somehow lesser than humans? Humans also imitate other things, like other humans. Humans just like to treat themselves as something unique, individual, supreme and so on. That just stems from egoism (many times seen in religion) and not from actual reasoning. I believe if a machine can literally treat itself (or "imitate") as being alive, then IT IS alive.

edit: Also, time-killer-games, I will ask you a question I sometimes ask people: If we both met - what would be the number one reason you wouldn't (or would) kill me? You can also give several reasons and order them by significance.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2013, 04:10:11 PM by TheExDeus » Logged
Offline (Male) time-killer-games
Reply #4 Posted on: December 27, 2013, 04:56:39 PM

Contributor
Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1166

View Profile Email
With arrogance like that you just might have proven devolution is correct. I disagree with you, so just as my topic predicts, you instantly think I'm a dumbass. Whether evolution is right or wrong, makes no difference. Whether any individual thinks evolution is fact or not, this doesn't at all determine how smart that individual is. I'm not calling you stupid. May I kindly remind you it's arrogance like that started the holocaust, black slavery in the US, and many major unfortunate events throughout history clearly reflect if there is anything in the universe that is most destructive (and self destructive) it is arrogance over something as incredibly silly as a harmless disagreement. So if you are intellectually superior over me that's real cool and all but to straight up tell me I'm a dim bulb because I disagree with you that's just as stupid as I were to do the same thing to you.

Arrogance is an emotion often felt when someone can't stomach hearing a conflicting opinion. So to make the conflicting view go away he or she emotionally zones out all reason and decides to meditate on blind (and often false) superiority, when will humanity learn? That's exactly what brought me to post this, everyone thinks they know fucking everything and anyone who dare disagrees is treated like absolute shit as if they did anything wrong or as if they are as stupid as being accused of. Everyone acts like they have so much evidence when really I'm certain none of us are right. People can sit on their holy thrones and be arrogant until their heads turn red and lose oxygen. Have fun with that. Anyone else out there who's noticed this destructive pattern?

Also, you clearly don't know the dirrence between science and theory. Saying evoltion is science is just as out of place as saying christianity is science. When I said true science can be observed directly I meant just that. You don't seem to be connecting the dots.yes, sometimes we need to test a hypothesis by observing the cause and effect of certain thing in order to prove something else. But that's just it, science can actually be tested theories can't. You can breed pigs until the day you die farmer Joe, the pigs will not change one bit long after you and your descendants are dead. Yes microevoltion is science, that's because we can actually test and see it take place when fucking a butterfly. Macro evolution can't be tested by fossils or living things, because that requires us to find a way to either travel time or expand our life beyond a million years. Both of which is best left in fairytale sci fi movies. we shouldn't act like we know these things for certain trust me we have no way of knowing these things if we tried.

Mutations according to modern science clearly suggest nothing positive. If you think a goat born with five legs is proof of anything remotely close to a positive mutation, please also consider if that goat gets fucked by a she-goat I can garentee the baby goat will have four legs. What about that guy(s) in Asia born with two heads? Both heads have a wife now, and their kids have one head.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2013, 05:03:39 PM by time-killer-games » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) TheExDeus
Reply #5 Posted on: December 28, 2013, 04:43:40 AM

Developer
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1872

View Profile
Please read the whole post before commenting. I think you didn't fully read the last one.

The only things you could actually consider as "offensive" in my post was "This shows your lack of understanding about science" and "but clearly not enough to actually come to a competent conclusion in the matter." and both are not some emotional statements, but just things I pointed out. And I didn't stop with them there - each were argumented in a whole paragraph. So I don't get why you got all emotional all of the sudden, as your response is what actually proves MY point. I didn't say you were a dumbass because you don't believe evolution, I just said you have clearly not researched enough to come to a conclusion on the matter. For example, this:
Quote
Also, you clearly don't know the dirrence between science and theory
I do know! And that is why I was so harsh about your last post, because you clearly don't. You have the same 120 year old thinking that the church had then. In science, there IS NOT DIFFERENCE between theory and fact. I will quote from the definition for you:
Quote
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force. Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).
(please read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory). So theories in science consist of facts. And the fact that you don't know that (and when I pointed that out you got upset) makes you look like the classical creationist. I didn't meant to be rude. I wasn't trying to be offensive. But the thing is that in science people are direct and whenever they say something they do that with argumentation. And I did that. You on the other hand disregard my arguments and called me arrogant. I can assure you arrogance has nothing to do with this. When a person calls you ignorant because lack of knowledge, it isn't because the person is arrogant. It's so you would go and get that knowledge, or at least don't come to conclusions without it. Like you did in your last post. You seem to already have a strong opinion about evolution without even understanding what it actually is and how it is tested and proven. And that is what science IS NOT about. To make a competent decision you actually must be competent.

So please, you don't have to call me arrogant just because I am truthful with you. I don't want people to get offended by anything, but I do want people to learn. Because as I said, you have a strong opinion on what is evolution and what is science, but you seem to have false ideas about both of them. And that is what I tried to point out. And don't tell me "but it's my opinion", because science is not an opinion, it's clearly defined, it has clear methods and so is evolution. You can have an opinion that science is wrong or that evolution is wrong, but you cannot have an opinion on what science or evolution is.

P.s. Also, with your "definition" of science we wouldn't get further than Galileo. As I pointed out in my last post, almost nothing is directly measured or directly observed. And yet your PC works, your phone works, GPS works and so on. All of these things work on "theories". Like phones work using theory of electromagnetism (which cannot be directly observed). GPS works also using theory of general relativity (which also cannot be directly observed) and so on.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 04:56:50 AM by TheExDeus » Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) daz
Reply #6 Posted on: December 28, 2013, 06:50:50 AM
Contributor
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 167

View Profile
Religion is a very personal topic, I don't see the point in trying to convert people to / from one. I like some of the ideologies present in many religions. Morals are good to have for a stable society. The problem I have with the Christian god is that he/it is overly cruel, and most Christians seem to ignore it.

In terms of scientific evidence, let's say it's lacking on all sides. However when people wonder about evolution, it is still a theory. It is however the most widely accepted theory due to the discovered evidence. Yes people can go on about missing links, but what do they give in return? Poof people were here. The fact is, microevolution has been observed, it is not hard to see how macroevolution could be possible (imo).

The old earth vs. new earth is a matter of rather pointless debate. Even Christians debate among themselves which they think is right. If you take the Bible completely literally (which I think is foolish), the earth was made in 7 days, end of story. Of course believing in a god that can do anything it's not a hard pill to swallow, just take it as fact. But, who's to say how long he took to make the universe or earth anyway. Maybe a day was really a thousand years. IMO that doesn't matter at all for religion or debates.

Any deeper of a religious / philosophical debate seems pointless. "Professionals" have been doing this for decades with no real results on either side. If you want to question your faith, more power to you -- but don't let anyone else try to convince you of something.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) TheExDeus
Reply #7 Posted on: December 28, 2013, 07:59:22 AM

Developer
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1872

View Profile
I agree with that. I don't have problems someone believing personally whatever they wish, but most religions are about converting people and so that in the end poses problems. I personally don't see a reason to "fight" religion (and most irreligious people don't) because I see it a problem of education more than anything else. A person can believe a personal god all he wants (as it cannot be scientifically proven or disproven anyway), but insights into logic, induction, morals, rationality, scientific method and basic sciences like physics, chemistry and biology give enough material for most people to become either atheist or agnostic. And that is because then a person sees a book like bible as no more a fact than Lord of the Rings. And so all the "regular" reasons why people believe god (like "he created us and the world" and "Jesus performed miracles") are irrelevant and the only thing left is whether there is a god or not. That is why irreligion is so widespread in science (for example in a very religious country like USA where maybe 10% of population are irreligious, yet about 95% of scientists are irreligious). And in 21th century education (especially exact sciences) are very popular and available to everyone. It's not some "elitist" thing anymore. I am, for example, about to finish Master's degree in AI and robotics and have a bachelors degree in electronics, and I payed a wooping sum of 20$ (10$ registration fee for each). In Scandinavia education is also totally free and math, physics, electronics, CS and so on are very popular. Probably that is why they have the highest amount of atheists in the world.

So in my personal opinion religion will loose more and more influence until goes extinct in the age of reason.
Logged
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #8 Posted on: December 28, 2013, 12:06:18 PM

Developer
Location: Cappuccino, CA
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3110

View Profile
Logged
I think it was Leonardo da Vinci who once said something along the lines of "If you build the robots, they will make games." or something to that effect.

Offline (Male) time-killer-games
Reply #9 Posted on: December 28, 2013, 04:28:45 PM

Contributor
Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1166

View Profile Email
Ok.
Logged
Offline (Unknown gender) TheExDeus
Reply #10 Posted on: December 28, 2013, 06:06:39 PM

Developer
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1872

View Profile
And that's the other thing. In science when a person cannot make a counter-argument, he usually just agrees with the other person. That is how consensus is created. Not with childish clinging to "I'm right", but trough dialog. But in your case I doubt you say "Ok" because you agree with everything I said. You just cannot create a counter-argument and so forfeit (aka run away) from the discussion. But I sure hope you learned something about science trough this topic. :) Because as I said numerous times before - I don't try to offend in any way. I am just trying to make the other person realize where has made a mistake in his thinking. And that is also a central pillar of science and scientific ethics - When another person proves your wrong, you thank him. As that is an opportunity to learn and there is nothing more grand than that.
Logged
Offline (Male) time-killer-games
Reply #11 Posted on: December 29, 2013, 12:47:25 AM

Contributor
Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1166

View Profile Email
I knew you were going to say that. Get those rocks out of your ass and use at least a vague form of logic.

Are you you fiucking kidding me? I could debate this for god damn hours. I'm choosing not to because talking to a close-minded rock head is not beneficial to me nor is it to anyone. There are times when everyone just needs to shut up and what all the atheists I've met share this urge to argue stubbornly as if anyone is going to benefit or come to any agreement. It's pointless bullshit. All atheists have this in common - they don't know when to stfu and give it a rest there's no point, this topic wasn't meant to be a religious debate or anything remotely close to that so can you stop blabbering? You still haven't explained why exactly evolution suggests positive mutations while real life can easily, blatantly display that is retarded and opposite what is fact. You aren't capable of defending your views, so you resorted to ignore the points I made about evolution and changed the subject to why you think religion is bull. Don't tell me why religion is bull if you can't even defend why you think evolution isn't bull. I admitted I could be wrong about creationism, this dumbfuck crap how you can't hardly bother opening your eyes to the fact you could be wrong too, God forbid that, wow. Everything you say is fact, but guess what, everyone feels that way, and everyone down on planet earth disagree about a million different things. The chances of you being right is no more or less likely than the chance of me being right.
Logged
Offline (Male) time-killer-games
Reply #12 Posted on: December 29, 2013, 12:56:26 AM

Contributor
Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1166

View Profile Email
Please argue with yourself until your head explodes or you rot in the dirt just don't involve me I have a life that must go on outside of the computer please don't hesitate to stick yourr erect penis up your USB port. Believe it or not the are better things for me to do like get a job or start driving since I'm 19 I have a lot more pressing needs than to argue endlessly about something neither of us will be able to convince or disprove the other. Is this making sense? Please, PLEASE tell me you aren't THIS stupid. I really hope you know this arguing shit is pointless.
Logged
Offline (Male) time-killer-games
Reply #13 Posted on: December 29, 2013, 01:03:00 AM

Contributor
Location: Virginia Beach
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1166

View Profile Email
I have no choice but to do this. Please come up with an elaborate excuse as to why you supposedly disagree with this quote I'm reposting...

Quote
You can breed pigs until the day you die farmer Joe, the pigs will not change one bit long after you and your descendants are dead. Yes microevoltion is science, that's because we can actually test and see it take place when fucking a butterfly. Macro evolution can't be tested by fossils or living things, because that requires us to find a way to either travel time or expand our life beyond a million years. Both of which is best left in fairytale sci fi movies. we shouldn't act like we know these things for certain trust me we have no way of knowing these things if we tried.

Mutations according to modern science clearly suggest nothing positive. If you think a goat born with five legs is proof of anything remotely close to a positive mutation, please also consider if that goat gets fucked by a she-goat I can garentee the baby goat will have four legs. What about that guy(s) in Asia born with two heads? Both heads have a wife now, and their kids have one head.
Logged
Offline (Male) Goombert
Reply #14 Posted on: December 29, 2013, 02:35:54 AM

Developer
Location: Cappuccino, CA
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 3110

View Profile
Quote
Mutations according to modern science clearly suggest nothing positive. If you think a goat born with five legs is proof of anything remotely close to a positive mutation, please also consider if that goat gets fucked by a she-goat I can garentee the baby goat will have four legs. What about that guy(s) in Asia born with two heads? Both heads have a wife now, and their kids have one head.
Where is this quote from? Because it is entirely wrong, natural selection is certain genes/mutations being favored over other ones, which therefore categorizes them as "positive"; a goat growing a 5th leg is not a positive/dominant trait unless it gives an evolutionary advantage.
Logged
I think it was Leonardo da Vinci who once said something along the lines of "If you build the robots, they will make games." or something to that effect.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 »
  Print