Started By
Message
2
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:16 pm to Roger Klarvin
That's how you know he's a troll.
Those kinds of Christians are afraid of the internet.
Those kinds of Christians are afraid of the internet.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:23 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
You look down on people who drink for starters
Nope, I don't. First, there's a big difference between drinking and getting drunk. I drink, I don't get drunk. I feel sorry for the people who drink to the point of getting drunk. Ignorantly, some will brag about it.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:26 pm to beejon
1: Its fun.
2: Every time you have even one drink, you're technically "drunk". The issue is how one personally defines being drunk. By college frat standards, I dont get drunk. I enjoy a good buzz but being drunk to where it alters my level of conciousness is uncomfortable to me.
Thats the problem with being against "drunkeness", its arbitrary. Most would agree that pass out drunk isnt ideal, and driving drunk is bad, but beyond that its so varied.
2: Every time you have even one drink, you're technically "drunk". The issue is how one personally defines being drunk. By college frat standards, I dont get drunk. I enjoy a good buzz but being drunk to where it alters my level of conciousness is uncomfortable to me.
Thats the problem with being against "drunkeness", its arbitrary. Most would agree that pass out drunk isnt ideal, and driving drunk is bad, but beyond that its so varied.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 2:29 pm to Roger Klarvin
Well, we could argue about 'drunk' but the point was, I certainly don't think I'm better than someone because they're a drunk and I'm not.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 6:51 pm to beejon
quote:
Woah. Hold on friend! I don't think I've ever acted high and mighty and judgmental...ever.
I'll vouch for that. beejon has never acted high and mighty and judgmental.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 6:54 pm to Manzielathon
quote:
Elephants eat whole trees?... This evolution stuff really is witchcraft ;)
Yes, they've evolved teeth for grinding that literally makes pulp of woody plants.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 7:46 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
That's good, I guess, but evolution is really a cruel and heartless theory, since it gives no value to life and adds no purpose to living other than survival.
That's the stupidest shite I've ever heard.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 7:50 pm to Kentucker
The idea that one can go to the fossil record and recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, an illusion.....but....but...but..... we have a scientific consensus, so it must be true. The consensus argument is invoked, when evidence is weak....... As someone once said, "a claim of consensus is the refuge of the scoundrel"
Posted on 4/12/14 at 7:54 pm to TeLeFaWx
Even if evolution is cruel and depressing, so what? Does that mean it isnt true?
I never understood that line of thinking, that just because something offends our sensibilities it must be false. The universe doesnt give a damn about our feelings on death and morality.
I never understood that line of thinking, that just because something offends our sensibilities it must be false. The universe doesnt give a damn about our feelings on death and morality.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 7:57 pm to mattloc
quote:
The idea that one can go to the fossil record and recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, an illusion
Well this is just patently false. We have a very large sequence of fossils leading from land mammals to whales and from aquatic animals to the first ones that walked on land.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 8:13 pm to Roger Klarvin
(no message)
Posted on 4/12/14 at 8:15 pm to Roger Klarvin
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 8:29 pm to mattloc
Based on that, and your posts in the pasts, you have established that it is literally impossible for you to ever be convinced of evolution because none of the evidence actually counts as evidence and no potential evidence we COULD find would count as evidence.
You're the kind of person science cant help because you have impossibly high criteria that keep shifting when more and more evidence is revealed. Even modern evolution that has been observed by scientists, such as ring species, is discounted by you because it doesnt count as a change in "kind", whatever that means.
You're the kind of person science cant help because you have impossibly high criteria that keep shifting when more and more evidence is revealed. Even modern evolution that has been observed by scientists, such as ring species, is discounted by you because it doesnt count as a change in "kind", whatever that means.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 8:30 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
That's good, I guess, but evolution is really a cruel and heartless theory, since it gives no value to life and adds no purpose to living other than survival.
Ultimately, this is true. In Darwinism, when your child holds your hand and tells you he/she loves you, it's just a chemical reaction in the brain and genetics which are there for survival of the fittest.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 8:34 pm to beejon
Again, so what? Why is that evidence against evolution?
Just because something is objectively difficult to emotionally deal with is in no way evidence against its reality. If this line of thinking were true, we could literally wish dead loved ones back to life.
Also, evolution makes no claim about God. Millions of people who accept evolution are theistic evolutionists, believe in Yahweh or another being as author of creation.
Just because something is objectively difficult to emotionally deal with is in no way evidence against its reality. If this line of thinking were true, we could literally wish dead loved ones back to life.
Also, evolution makes no claim about God. Millions of people who accept evolution are theistic evolutionists, believe in Yahweh or another being as author of creation.
This post was edited on 4/12/14 at 8:36 pm
Posted on 4/12/14 at 8:48 pm to Roger Klarvin
Darwinistic evolution does make a claim about God. It's a Godless theory...and might I add, based on suppositions and guesses. All life (not speaking of abiogenesis) is the result of a series of naturalistic events with no supernatural input whatsoever.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 9:11 pm to beejon
If Darwin had said god made the first living thing that spread to all others it would no longer be a godless theory, it also no longer would have been just science, because it would have then also been a religion. Darwin didn't leave God out of it because it as a means to say he didn't exist, he left him out because Religion doesn't belong in science.
Like I told another poster, I'm sorry your religion has got science in it.
Like I told another poster, I'm sorry your religion has got science in it.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 9:16 pm to beejon
Darwin believed in God his entire life and died a christian.
Posted on 4/12/14 at 9:20 pm to NATidefan
Religion and science can surely coexist, but Darwinism is inherently Godless. There isn't a part of the theory which allows for God. Begin to point out that the infinitely complex and tremendously varied creation we observe isn't possible due to a series of random events and you very well know that the Godless in Darwinism will quickly come to it's defense and demand that God be left out of it.
Darwinistic evolution is a Godless theory.
Darwinistic evolution is a Godless theory.
Page 31 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News