Excalibur wrote: konflikti wrote:
Excalibur wrote:Because it's random, thus very unlikely. It also can't be repeated, thus is false.
Let's see you repeat creation. No? Where is your God now? Double standards are all fun and games until you get called on them.
That's why it's faith, smart one.
Resorting to faith is really the equivalent of throwing up your arms and going "Fine, you win, but I refuse to change." I mean, really. You start off saying there are logical reasons and evidence, but I smashed those. So now it's just "Faith!"
And you happen to be an idiot who's wrong. Don't question it, it's worthless to. I'm a faulty human, as are you.
"Don't question it..." Nope, no indoctrination here, folks.
There is no belief a sane or reasonable person will not question. Particularly in light of the fact that, as you point out, we are fallible.
No it's not. Biology isn't even in compliance with evolution.
That there is just irrational, accepting it as absolute truth when there's not sufficient proof to prove it happened.(Evolution today.)
Yes, yes there is.
It's not a scientific law.
Do you even know what a scientific law is? Tell me. What is a scientific law. And don't use wikipedia. What is, in your own words, a scientific law. I'm dying
to see how wrong you are.
You don't get it, you're qualified no matter what your world view.
No, no you are not. When a world view literally demands that there are certain concepts and ideals that may never, under any circumstances, be questioned you are not qualified for a job that requires and demands the worldview that any and all concepts, no matter how beloved or widespread, may and must be questioned when evidence calls them into question.
Although you shouldn't let that directly influence your work. Your world view is just how you think life originated.
Add the meaning of the word "world view" to the List.
Your world view is how you view the world, numbnuts. It is more than just believing that God created life. Also this is a belief that is completely antithetical to science. This is your argument:
Premise: There is insufficient evidence for evolution.
Sub-Conclusion: We do not know how life began.
Conclusion: God created life.
This God of the Gaps is the antithesis of science. Once you accept "God" as an explanation for anything that is not currently understood, science stops.
Premise: We do not understand how the human body functions.
Conclusion: God directly causes the human body to function.
Premise: We do not understand how diseases are spread.
Conclusion: God wills certain people to become unhealthy.
And one for the modern day
Premise: We do not know how gravity works.
Conclusion: God controls gravity.
As you can see, that is not science, yet that is exactly what Creationism does. You see a gap in human understanding and immediately fill it with God. If everyone accepted this mindset we would still be living in caves and no science would ever be accomplished. And, again, you can only use God as an explanation when God has been proven. Because "God created all life in it's current form." carries with it the implicit premise "God exists." because a non-entity can not bring about effects.
You're more biased than me, it seems.
Yes. Many strange, untrue, and fallacious things will seem true to those who understand little. As you are a mental midget I am not surprised you would come to a false conclusion.
Again, both beliefs are based on faith, something you belief but can't see.
That is not faith!
You have faith the wind is real and that gravity is real, also.
Because we directly observe their effects, can measure them! Ugh! You are so stupid!
We have the same evidence, fossils, life, plants, the universe. We look at the same thing through different glasses, as Ken Ham says.
No. You look at them through blinders, not glasses.
What's your evidence? Tell me and I'll see if we have the same.(Give me a brief example, maybe about 10 piece of evidence.)
I'm not bothering.
God of gaps? What gaps?
Where X = the origin of species:
We do not understand X. Ergo God did X.
Evolution is the hypothesis of gaps.
All hypothesis are hypothesis of gaps, you idiot. That's what science is. An attempt to explain gaps in current human understanding.
So yes, evolution is a theory of gaps. It fills the former gap in human understanding regarding the origin of species.
Theo their belief has the same evidence, just they look at in a different way, has not in ANY way(But simulations on the computer.) been observed, thus being faith also, hypocrite.
You are just ignoring evidence now. I linked you to the article on the nylon eating bacteria. And that's not counting the fact we have observed mutations in humans and other species. Do you deny heredity? Do you deny that children inherit some genes from their parents and that others are the result of random mutation during cell replication?
Is illogically consistent and doesn't comply with empirical knowledge, either.
Empirical Evidence: Fossil Records, Genetic Mutation, Heredity, Nylonase, etc
Logical Conclusion: Species have changed over time.
Logical Conclusion: Children inherit the genes of their parents but also have their own genetic diversity arising through mutation. Logically those individuals who have genes that better equip them for survival will live longer and pass these genes on more frequently than those individuals who lack such beneficial genes, or who's mutations have made them poorer equipped to survive.
Logical Conclusion: Over the spans of generations these mutations can produce profound changes as species arise and adapt to fill various niches in an ecosystem.
Final Conclusion: This process of heredity and random mutation combined with the "natural selection" that causes those with beneficial genes to succeed and thrive and unhelpful or "inferior" genes to struggle and die out is responsible for the preponderance of biological diversity on Earth today. This process shall be called evolution.
Tell me where there is a logical contradiction. Tell me.
has explanatory power, yes, but has too many missing links and gaps.
The cause is completely irrational and un-empirical, thus being fideism, explained in a incredibly un-sound and incoherent manner.
Show me in the above explanation what is irrational. And the cause is irrational and un-empirical? You are saying, now, that children don't inherit certain genes from their parents and that other genes are created through mutation? Really? Because if you are saying the "cause' of evolution is irrational and "un-empirical" that is exactly what you are saying.
The opposing theory has no gaps or contradictions,
I already showed you the contradiction, even ignoring the fact it presupposes the existence of God. If life, by virtue of it's complexity, necessitates design then so too must God necessitate design.
despite the opposition's misunderstanding and un-knowledgeable understanding of the Bible.
Oh really? Well, evolution is also wholly contrary to the scientific method. Hypocrite.
I demonstrated above how it is contrary. You have not demonstrated how evolution is. Furthermore, this is a logical fallacy; tu quoque. Just because I am wrong - assuming I was - does not mean you are right. If evolution is wrong, as I said before, it does not mean creationism is right. Both could be wrong.
No it's not, if we didn't have evolution we'd understand it more truthfully and factual. It's not necessary to understand any. No world view is.
No, it is. Certain pagan worldviews or ultra-fanatical monotheistic worldviews in which science is evil and everything that happens is literally an act of God or gods or spirits is kind of a huge barrier to understanding science.
Not at all you liar! It's done nothing for medical advances! Only factual discoveries in real biology has, fool!
Oooh, did I hit a nerve? I hope so.
Tell me one thing evolution's brought about in medical advance.
And understanding that by processes of natural selection pathogens can, over generations, become immune or resistant to certain treatments.
I'd say it's done more to hurt us than help us.
Really? Show me one way in which the theory of evolution has directly caused harm to humanity in it's application in the fields of science and technology. One way.
There's no vestigial organs, which is direct proof against evolution, and that was a medical advance, that the appendix is needed.
What the fuck are you even talking about! What the fucking Christ! The appendix IS
vestigial you fucking mental midget! Jesus fucking Christ on a pogo-stick but you are retarded. I personally know people who have had their appendices removed! Show me one credible medical or scientific source saying the appendix is necessary and also explaining how it functions and what it's function is. And also explains how it is that many humans get by just fine in life with no diminished capacity after having had their appendix removed.
How has it aided us in regards to fighting diseases? How? Tell me, you hypocritical liar!
I did. And hypocritical liar is kind of redundant.
Exactly, fool, that's why everyone of every world view should be allowed to be scientists. They interpret their evidence to their world view. Back it up yourself, liar.
I have been doing it, over and over again, and you just ignore it and keep posting new, more retarded, arguments. I'll get back to that in a bit, though.
Some? All. Liar.
Liar? Really? Biology benefits from an understanding of evolution. Sociology benefits from an understanding of evolution (memetics). Computer programming and robotics benefit from an understanding of evolution (Self-replicating programs, Von Neumann machines, the danger of accidental gray goo scenarios, etc). Physics/Cosmology may
benefit from an understanding of evolution, although I'll cede that here it's doubtful. Dawkins had an interesting idea that universes may "reproduce" via black holes and thus those universes which lack the proper physical conditions to produce singularities of that sort would "die out" so to speak, while the universes, like ours, which can produce black holes would be the more common and successful sort of universe in the multiverse. Obviously that's just armchair theorizing at the moment, and not really science, but it is an interesting idea, for sure, and who knows if it may one day prove testable, and even right, as our understanding of physics improves and with it our technology.
He stated the absolute truth, hypocrite and fool.
Even though I proved it wrong. Sure.
Hah! Fool. Even evolutionists admitted it, it's not at all in the least necessary.
Ack! Ugh! Oogh! Oh! Mercy, Excal, mercy! I am dying!
I didn't see him say that. But if he did, it was a real idiotic thing to say, 'cause that's impossible.
That is exactly what he said, and it's impossible? What? Are you retarded? What are you saying is impossible there?
1. That technology has improved.
2. That by improving technology can be applied more effectively to more areas.
Because both of those are indisputable facts.
And that's why we can't debate, we can only argue. You don't accept at all God exists, I don't accept at all evolution is true.
Except I can bring logical argumentation and empirical evidence to my argument that God is non-existent, which is of course superfluous because the onus of proof is on you, anyway. You can only spew fallacies and hilarious threats, in turn.
And, again, no it's not. Something both me and Gat agree on, evolution isn't even science!(I think he said that, didn't he?) If not, oh well, it's still not any kind of science at all, it's a faith.
I proved it's science. You keep making claims and keep putting up no logical or empirical reasons to accept them. You are literally just spouting nonsense at this point.
No, they don't give rise to new "species." He has a great point there, everything to date in this world that man's made has come about by ID(Intelligent design.), not random chance.
It is not purely random chance, it is natural section. And that is how these machines and programs evolved. Let me illustrate a hypothetical situation in which machine evolution occurs. It's similar to the actual events.
Von Neumann Machine 4 is designed to self-replicate and to seek out "food." It has three sensors, facing forward, back, and left respectively that allow it to find "food." The food being some sort of electrical supply. This "food" is needed to power the VMM and also to power it's self-replication. Without enough food it cannot replicate, and without a certain amount of food below that it will cease to function.
VMM4 is itself the result of a replication of a prior VMM3 who came from VMM2 who came from VMM1. There are no significant differences in the machines VMM1-4. Then something happens. A random accident in replication occurs when VMM4 is self-replicating. It's machine offspring, VMM5, has four sensors instead of three - an additional right facing sensor.
Now VMM1-4 continue to self-replicate, but they do not produce another "mutant" like VMM5 - their offspring are all three sensor models. By contrast VMM5's offspring all have four sensors. Something is beginning to happen.
Due to the greater field of vision VMM5 and it's descendants are having a much easier time finding food supplies and getting around obstacles. With their greater food supplies they are reproducing more and more the tri-sensor models cannot keep up and are beginning to "starve off" and "die".
Thus the VMM5 Quad-Sensor model of robot "evolved" from the VMM1-4 Tri-Sensor model. Thus natural selection led to the spread and propagation of the VMM5 "species." and the decline and ultimate extinction of the VMM1-4 "species."
Similar experiments have been carried out with programs. In fact there are some awesome evolution simulation programs that work along these lines. I can provide links to anyone interested - nearly all are freeware.
That's more proof against it.
Again, see above. The initial robot or program was the result of intelligent design, but once created random errors in self-replication allowed for evolution. This is evidence for evolution. Remember, also, that evolution makes no statements or claims regarding the origin of life itself, only the mechanism by which the earliest forms of life diversified and by which the myriad of diverse and amazing species we now see came into being.
So the fact that these initial machines and programs were created by intelligent humans is in no way harmful to their being used as evolution analogues.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Creation is completely consistent with technology and science, evolution is not. Explain to me how Creation isn't.
I did. See God of Gaps fallacy. And also explain how evolution isn't.
You're so much more biased than me.
Calling something out for what it is is not bias. Observing that Morgan Freeman has dark skin is not bias. Claiming that Morgan Freeman's dark skin somehow makes him an inferior actor in spite of the fact he's an awesome actor and all around cool dude is bias.
I <3 U MORGAN FREEMAN!!!
What contradictory evidence? Huh? Huh? HUH? Yours does, big time, you hypocritical, idiotic, blind fool of a liar!
Your insults are so bad. It's like you just took out a thesaurus and started looking for insults.
Here, use this one: "Yours does, big time, you cocksucking semen-guzzling dipshit fuckwad of a shitstain!"
That's a freebie!
Anyway, you keep talking of this contradictory evidence and refuse to provide it. I talk of lacking evidence and logical contradictions and then provide the latter and challenge you to provide the missing former. There is literally no one here who thinks you have carried your argument well, while just about everyone here, even those who don't agree with me, are in agreement that my arguments are better conducted.
Hypocrite. The "theory" of evolution, which my brother observed is actually a hypothesis, is a historical event and is not a biological mechanism.
It is an ongoing process! What are you blathering about! Nylonase! As long as life exists evolution will happen!
Even if it was, it would still be a historical event incapable of being tested by the scientific theory, the only way to make sure something scientists study is true.
It is not an event, it is a mechanical process! It also can be tested by observing events over generations. Also, again, one can arrive at knowledge in ways beyond mere scientific experimentation. Induction is a valid epistemology. And...
SCIENTIFIC METHOD. NOT SCIENTIFIC THEORY. JESUS CHRIST. HOW HARD IS IT? TWO. FUCKING. WORDS. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! SCIENTIFIC METHOD. NOT SCIENTIFIC THEORY. NOT SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS. NOT SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. NOT SCIENTIFIC WAY. NOT SCIENTIFIC HAPPENSTANCE. NOT. ANYTHING. ELSE. SCIENTIFIC. METHOD.
Yes you are, liar.
No I am not. Again, you understand nothing of evolution. It is a mechanism by which species arise and go extinct. It is something that would be in effect, theoretically, as long as there are living things. Granted sapience can throw a bit of monkeywrench into the mix by way of compassion and things, but then I suppose you'd have something like "compassionate selection" taking the place of "natural selection." And it's still natural selection, really, since the trait or quality of looking and/or behaving in such a manner that causes humans to feel compassion for you is a beneficial trait and those species which cannot rouse man's sense of empathy will be left to suffer without his aid.
Do you know, you accomplish nothing with these worthless, idiotic statements?[/QUOTE
Not true! I know that Sedy and A Random Ninja and others find these threads hilarious. So do I! And it's true, too.
I think yours is insane, too.
Except I can back mine up.
I think my worldview is right, yes, but I also understand and recognize it is based on weight of evidence and logical conclusions drawn from this evidence. If new evidence was to arise that cast doubt on my conclusions I would immediately reconsider my positions. There is literally nothing I believe that I would not question if I had found evidence that warranted it's questioning.
That guy actually had a very true statement there, so try looking at the truth, for once. You're so biased into thinking your world view is so high and mighty and absolute truth, you seem indoctrinated to me!
That is the crux, the very essence, of the rational and scientific worldview. Nothing is sacred, all is suspect. That is why the Christian worldview is incompatible with hard scientific inquiry - it holds that certain precepts - such as the existence of God - are beyond questioning. There is no evidence - and you yourself admitted this - that can cause you to believe God does not exist.
[Not me! You're getting more and more hypocritical every post! This guy is very smart on some issues, yet you ignore the intelligent statements!
Show me where. Show me where I did not refute one of his premises.
That's actually a true statement he made. Seriously.
You are precious.
It actually is consistent with the flood.
No it's not.
It's true, it confirms the Bible. Only real science does. Evolution isn't real, let alone science.
Congratulations, you have dragged me down to your level. I never hated a person before because of their intellectual failings, only their moral ones.
I am now, sadly, ashamed to admit that I hate you because of your intellectual failings as well as your moral ones. Fuck.
I have literally never met someone as dumb as you in my life.
Honestly, you are evidence that is calling my whole worldview into question. I was always of the opinion that the human reason and intellect could overcome all things. That the human mind, unfettered by shackles of fantasy, could conquer the world through science and master itself through reason. You have presented me with a reservoir of madness and stupidity so deep that it is a veritable singularity of idiocy. I am no longer so confident that the human mind will win. How can anything fathom, let alone conquer, so dark an abyss?
Holy crap! I have a well educated proffesional with a ph.D. on my side! Awesome!
That's argument from unqualified authority. It's a fallacy, you rube. His credentials are only relevant if they are related to the issue. The issue is biology, not astrophysics or any other branch of physics. Furthermore science, and this you would know if you had any idea how it worked, has no authorities - only respected thinkers. A reasonable human being accepts or dismisses claims based on the strength or weakness of the argument - not on the moral or intellectual character of the proponent.
The world's smartest man may make mistakes, and the worlds greatest fool may stumble onto truth.
He's a perfect example of Christians being real scientists, hypocrite. Stop with this bias of lies.
A bias can't be a bias of lies. I don't think you know what bias means. And, again, it's not bias to call something out on what it is.
No. Just find no reason to RIGHT NOW IDIOT! PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I SAY FOR ONCE!
I believe earlier in the thread you said you never would.
Ever heard this before? YOU KNOW WANT I MEAN!!!!!!!!!!
Except I don't
know what you mean. You said that a random, chance, occurrence could never
create anything. I then immediately provided you with two scenarios in which chance accidents produce something. You then started bawwing. It's not my fault that you want your arguments to continue to hold water even after they have been refuted. Maybe you should stop using bad arguments - that might help.
Two particles can't even make an explosion in a universe they're supposed to create 'cause there was nothing that created the universe. Their explosion would also not make anything.
I agree. It's a good thing the big bang theory is nothing like that, at all!
Another hypothesis I understand isn't even necessary to look into more, I know the basics of it, and there's not really anything more to it than the particles blowing up and making things.
So you just blindly reject it out of hand. Nice one. This is exactly why you can't be a scientist. You reject a theory, out of hand, that you literally understand nothing
Yes you do. You're hypocrite. You believe the Big Bang and evolution, which both say you're a random accident, so therefore you do believe(This time I caught that I had "belief" typed and corrected it.) you're an accident. Read what I write.
No I don't, you're an idiot. Listen
I believe the origin of life on Earth is an event which has it's roots in random chance, yes. Life on Earth was possibly the result of random happenstance or possibly an inevitable result of certain chemical compounds having been present at the right place. Either way the fact it happened here, on Earth, is ultimately random chance.
I, however, am not the first being on Earth and thus I am not the result of that event.
Over billions of years life evolved and developed and eventually beings with sapience came into existence. Once sapience came onto the scene, chance ceased to reign supreme and conscious choice took over. I am not the result of random chance - I am the result of two sapient beings choosing to reproduce and have a child. A conscious choice. I daresay that a conscious decision is about as far from random chance as one can possibly get.
And let's take up a hypothetical. Let's assume that "Tommy" was an unplanned child. He's still the result of conscious choice. In Tommy's case his life is the result of a conscious choice by his mother to have sex with a man who was not using a condom while she herself was not on the pill. Tommy is the direct result of that conscious choice. And assume that maybe Tommy's dad did use a rubber, and it broke. Okay. He's still the result of conscious choice, namely the choice of his parents tho accept the extremely small risk of pregnancy resulting from intercourse with a condom. And in all cases he is the result of a further choice by the mother to carry this child to term and not to have an abortion.
Every single thing a human being, or any hypothetical sapient being, does is the result of a conscious choice. Every action you take or do not take is the result of conscious choice. Nothing a human being ever does is random chance. Nothing.
An outcome of an event may not be the desired one, but the conscious choice to risk that outcome or to act in absence of all the facts was still made. Nothing is chance.
According to your beliefs you have no meaning in life and can go jump off a cliff.
First of all, if life had no meaning that still would not warrant jumping off a cliff. If life is meaningless and death is meaningless than both are equally meaningless and neither is preferable to the other. Both would have zero meaning and I hope you understand math enough to understand that 0 = 0.
And see above. I have made multiple posts explaining how meaning and value exist in my worldview in the absence of God so I really don't see how you can possibly blather on about how according to my beliefs I have no meaning. I already stated, explicitly, that according to my beliefs I have enormous meaning and value.
If evolution and random chance were true, why is suicide considered illegal when they can't even punish you?
This argument is so monumentally retarded I am not even going to dignify it with a response. If you honestly cannot figure out why a society might criminalize suicide I don't know what to tell you. And I have already spoken out on my belief that suicide can be a moral and reasonable choice in certain circumstances and that it ought to, in these cases, be legal and have the full support of the state.
Sorry, I said theory, not method. Anyways. No it can't. It can't create a whole universe and there's no way to test it, it's faith, again.
Actually, you potentially can. Again, you dismiss things without understanding. There are methods by which, if certain models of reality pan out, one could create an entire universe. It may have already happened in black holes. And creating a stable black hole is certainly well beyond our means, today, but it is within the realm of possibility for a sufficiently advanced civilization.
One which you don't.
'Cause my brother's been there.
So? Hearsay. How do you know he's not lying. And substitute Europe with Antarctica.
My grandparents have been almost everywhere in the world, including Europe.
They lied to you.
But, how do I know they aren't lying? Faith. I have faith everyone who says it's there, including the maps and Google, are telling the truth.
You have that faith because these people and sources are reliable and have little reason to be suspected of lying to you, yes. That is a reasonable belief. There is no good reason, I assume, that you should suspect your brother or grandparents of lying to you. Of course, they could be wrong and not lying. They may have hallucinated it. Or been deceived by a third party. But, of course, in absence of their having been tricked by others or their own minds, we assume they are honest. This is a reasonable thing to do and no one would fault you for it.
That's my point. These are, presumably, reliable sources of information. Past experience has shown them to be individuals of sound mind and honest words. If they tell you something it is unlikely they are lying or were, themselves, lied to. Thus they are a reliable source of information provided they back up any truly outrageous claims with evidence.
The Bible, however, is the opposite and thus it is not a reliable source of information in the absence of corroborating evidence. And before you tell em to prove it - I DID. I already posted the link to historical and scientific inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible, but I will do so again. So unless you can address every one of these, shut up.
And that explains nothing. Again, you can't even use evidence! This is a logical, deductive, argument! Either I have made an error in my reasoning or I am right. Jesus Christ, you are stupid. There is no evidence that can help you. Nothing. You have to point out a flaw in that logical argument. That is all. Anything less does not negate it.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1.)
How were your two particles made?
Again, that is not the big bang theory, and many modern understandings of the universe do not postulate a creation event. Under such models the universe has always been.
That's the one question no world view explains, how the original thing that made the universe was made. That's why we have faith.
Actually, again, some do. And, again, Occams razor. The simplest answer is the best answer all other things being equal. If we are going to handwave this question the simplest answer is that the universe has always existed, not it's alleged creator.
How I got over every doubt I had about that exact topic: "If God didn't make everything than nothing would be here 'cause random, chance makes nothing."
That answers nothing and I already demonstrated that random chance can and does make many things.
How were your particles created in your beginning?
That's not how the theory works.
In what way is evolution different from that dragon? you tell me!
Evolution has evidence and can be inferred to exist by logical argumentation. The dragon may not have been seen, but we have felt his heat and seen his footprints and a few of our friends have been eaten by him.
God is different 'cause he gave His Son to die for us and made everything for us and loves us, among other things.
Oh, I see. That explains everything. I can't argue against such foolproof logic! God is different because he is related to another fictional character and because he has certain emotional traits.
So? The dragon loves us and gave us a baby wyrm who died for us.
Again, yes by your reasoning. You don't believe you were made with a purpose by a loving Creator, so therefore you do believe you're an accident, by your reasoning.
No. I was "made" by two rational agents, my parents, enacting a conscious choice to reproduce. I then was assigned a purpose by them until I reached mental maturity upon which point I assigned myself a purpose and began to form my own value judgments and assign myself and other things meaning. My value and purpose come from within, not from without. I am my own master and my own font of worth, and I do not need to rely on external things to give my life meaning or direction. I know what I want, I know what I value, and I will act - of my own volition - in accordance with these values and goals.
What's your purpose in life then? Why were you created?
My purpose in life is whatever I will it to be. I am currently of the view of what I like to call "Compassionate Hedonism." I want to have as much fun as I can in this life and, being moved by the suffering of others, I would very much like to help others do the same. Very many human beings are very unhappy and this makes me very sad. Life is much too short to be unhappy.
I was "created" because my father fucked my mother and she got pregnant and she did not have an abortion and, luckily for all involved, she did not miscarry. That's the how. The why is that my mother and father for a myriad of reasons both conscious and unconscious, desired to have a child and thus set about trying to do so. I also would surmise the pleasure of sexual intercourse factored into that equation too, but I would rather not spend too much time thinking about my parent's sexual habits, thank you very much.
Evolution came about by random chance, so therefore it is random chance. Think.[/quote
So causes and effects are the same thing now? Really? When did this happen and why was I never informed? I hate being out of the loop!
How do you explain the complexity of life? I won't take that answer, as evolution is false. (By the way, Firefox says "aeons" are "eons.")
Aeons is an acceptable, if a bit archaic, spelling. I believe it is still the norm in British English, although I am not confident enough to make the claim with certainty. I make the conscious choice to use that spelling because I find it to be more aesthetically pleasing than "eons." You would know this if you had a knowledge of language beyond, evidently, Firefox's spellchecker.
I have no answer then, for the record. That is like asking me "How do you explain how the man who was shot in the head died. I won't accept being shot in the head as an answer because I don't believe in guns."
If you don't accept the answer to something then I have no answer to give you. Well, okay, fine. I'll make up an answer.
An alien race, let's call them the Precursors, seeded Earth with a myriad of lifeforms all genetically engineered from the same base stock. This explains the genetic similarities in all organisms. Some creatures were directly based off of others, hence the similarities between, say, alligators and crocodiles or humans and apes. The Precursors then left Earth... because.
Do you believe that? I hope not. I just made it up.
Because, since this question assumes our God is true, that would make the Bible true, thus you rejecting it would be worthy of condemnation.
. The Bible explains the cause and the effect but not the why. It tells us if we refuse to accept God as master we go to Hell. That refusal is the cause and the hellfire the effect. It does not tell us the why. It does not tell us why God is so petty a tyrant as to do such a thing.
God holds the gift of eternal life for those who love Him, you hate Him and reject Him with all your heart, so why should He give you His greatest gift? Answer me that.
He shouldn't. But that does not mean he should send me to a concentration camp. There are people who hate me when I have shown them nothing but kindness, should I kidnap them and torture them in my basement? Sane and moral people do not torture other people, particularly over such paltry things.
Look, the result of public school, you said "this", not "that"!
Actually I went to Catholic school for middle school.
You got a typo! You must be an idiot and that must be the result of public school! See now how your insults there were useless?
I insulted you because I hate you, not because I honestly thought your mistakes were the result of your homeschooling.
I will readily admit that I am not perfect and that despite my love and knowledge of the English language I often make mistakes in its use. These posts are long and oftentimes upsetting and as the post goes on and on I find myself more and more angry, upset, and bored with them and thus I get more and more lazy and sloppy and more and more mistakes crop up. I know for a fact I have made certain other grammatical mistakes in other posts, so I really don't see why you chose that one to point out.
Anyway. Misinformed vote? I'll vote for a candidate who has mostly the same morals as my own and who supports the things I support and will do what I want. And best of all: Is eligible under our Constitution and will uphold it. My vote will be a good one, I assure you. Unlike my parents who just vote Republican no matter what...
I'm gonna ignore everything else, I wish to back out of this quicker now. Bye. Youth group now.
@Konflikti: Because it's fun. And because I might sway some people who are on the fence, or because I might cause some die hard Christians to become at least a little more reasonable. Or because I teach critical thinking.
In some ways Excal is the best opponent I could ask for. It allows this thread to play out like a Platonic dialogue. I am Plato and he is whatever idiot Plato is currently laying into. I don't have to reductio ad absurdum
his posts because he already has done that for me. So I can immediately and effectively point out exactly why they are unreasonable beliefs that no truly rational person can adhere to.
EDIT: Begone, typos! I cast thee out!